iii^ 


m 


^ 

^[' 

^ 

^■^^- 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2007  witli  funding  from 

l\/licrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/foundationsofameOOIiartiala 


THE   FOUNDATIONS 

OF 

AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 


Isaac  foot 

Li  R'^  A  IT/ 


•y'^>^ 


-y^— =-=— o 


[r 


THE    FOUNDATIONS 


OF 


AMERICAN  FOREIGN  POLICY 


friTH  A  WORKING  BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Br 
ALBERT   BUSHNELL    HART 

PROFESSOR.  OF  HISTORY  IN  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY 


THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

LONDON:  MACMILLAN  ft  CO.,  LTD. 
I9OI 

All  rightt  rtt4rvtd 


Copt  BIGHT,   1901, 
By  the    MACMILLAN   COMPANY. 


Norioood  Preii 

J,  S.  Cutbing  &Co.—  Bertvick  &  Smith 

Nor-wood,  Mats. J  U.S.A. 


I.IJIKAKY 

tJMVEKSll  V  (i[   (AIJFORNM 

SAiNTA  liAKliARA 


PREFACE 

This  book  does  not  attempt  to  present  a  sketch  of  the  diplo- 
matic history  of  the  United  States,  nor  even  to  describe  all  the 
foundations  which  underlie  the  conscious  or  unconscious  policy 
of  the  government  toward  other  countries.  The  full  story  of  the 
diplomatic  relations  of  our  country  is  recorded,  but  not  yet 
written.  There  is,  however,  so  much  misconception  about  the 
present  status  of  the  nation  in  the  councils  of  the  world,  and  so 
much  heedlessness  of  precedent  and  experience,  that  perhaps 
there  is  an  opportunity  to  show  that  our  forefathers  and  our 
grandfathers  had  problems  similar  to  our  own;  and  to  explain 
how  they  thought  that  they  had  solved  those  problems.  It  is  not 
my  intention  to  be  either  an  advocate  of  any  particular  policy,  or 
a  brief-holder  for  American  diplomats ;  though  the  most  casual 
reader  will  see  that,  with  few  reservations,  I  feel  pride  in  the 
purposes  and  results  of  American  diplomacy.  I  mean  simply  to 
set  down,  in  a  form  which  may  bring  out  the  relations  of  one 
event  to  another,  the  actual  history  of  some  phases  of  our  foreign 
relations.  In  this  method  of  treatment  it  is  not  possible,  nor  has 
it  been  thought  necessary,  to  avoid  mentioning  a  second  or  a  third 
time  an  episode  which  has  already  been  described.  Such  a  crisis 
as  the  Louisiana  purchase,  for  instance,  has  its  part  in  several 
different  lines  of  policy,  and   cannot  be  treated  as  a  separate 


vi  Preface 

event,  complete  in  itself.  On  the  other  hand,  the  book  does  not 
purport  to  be  a  history  of  American  diplomacy ;  many  contro- 
versies of  great  import  are  not  recorded  here ;  many  essential 
principles  here  find  no  mention.  All  the  chapters  of  this  work 
are  founded  on  magazine  articles ;  due  credit  is  duly  given  in  the 
table  of  contents  to  Harper's  Magazine,  the  Bond  Review,  and 
the  American  Historical  Review,  from  which  they  have  been 
reprinted,  with  revisions,  by  permission  of  the  publishers. 

In  preparing  the  bibliography  which  forms  the  last  chapter  of 
the  book,  I  have  availed  myself  of  the  helpful  criticism  of  several 
friends  ;  and  I  am  under  especial  obligation  to  Mr.  Andrew 
Hussey  Allen,  of  the  State  Department,  for  supplying  titles  of 
many  useful  publications. 

Harvard  University, 
October  i,  1901. 


CONTENTS 
I 

THE  UNITED  STATES  AS  A  WORLD  POWER 
(^Harper's  Magazine,  February,  1899) 

PAGB 

1 .  Tradition  of  Isolation i 

2.  Conditions  of  World  Power 5 

3.  Colonial  Period,  1492-1775 9 

4.  Revolutionary  Period,  1775-1783 13 

5.  Diplomacy  of  the  Confederation,  1 783-1 793 19 

6.  First  Napoleonic  Era,  1793-1802 23 

7.  Second  Nap>oleonic  Era,  1 802-1 815 25 

8.  Latin-America,  1815-1865 30 

9.  Pacific  and  the  East,  1785-1865 37 

10.   European  Relations,  181 5-1 865 40 

■  II.   West  Indies,  E^t  Indies,  and  Asia,  1 870- 1 900         ....  44 

1 2.  Review  of  World  Power 49 

II 

THE  EXPERIENCE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  IN  FOREIGN 
MILITARY   EXPEDITIONS 

(^Harper's  Magazine^  September,  1898) 

13.  Analysis  of  Military  Expeditions 53 

14.  Revolutionary  and  Barbary  Expeditions,  1775-1815           •         •         •  55 

15.  Expansive  Expeditions,  1 797-1821 61 


vni 


Contents 


FAGB 

1 6.  Protective  Expeditions,  1822- 1835 67 

17.  Aggressive  Expeditions,  1836- 1 850 68 

18.  Expeditions  become  a  Policy,  1850-1861 74 

j>\9.   Expeditions  in  America,  1861-1872 79 

^K^.   Commercial  and  Philanthropic  Expeditions,  1873-1898    ...  81 

21.  Review  of  Expeditions 85 

III 

BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSIES  AND  COMMISSIONS 
{Bond  Review,  March,  1896) 

22.  Extent  of  Boundary  Controversy 91 

23.  Revolutionary  and  Early  Federal  Adjustments,  1775-1798        .        .  93 

24.  Adjustment  of  the  Maine  Boundary,  1814-1842        •        •         •        •  95 

25.  Adjustment  of  the  Louisiana  Boundary,  1803-1828  .         ...  97 

26.  Adjustment  of  the  Oregon  Boundary,  1819-1872      ....  99 
7.   Alaskan  Controversies,  1867-1900 102 

28.  The  United  States  as  Arbiter  for  Other  Nations        ....  103 

29.  Lesson  of  Boundary  Controversies 105 


> 


IV 

A  CENTURY  OF  CUBAN   DIPLOMACY 
{Harper^ s  Magazine,  June,  1898) 

30.  What  is  Cuba  ? 108 

31.  The  Spaniards  in  Cuba 109 

32.  Interest  of  the  United  States  in  Cuba 113 

■^■^.   Analysis  of  Cuban  Diplomacy,  1795-1895 115 

34.  Commercial  Relations,  1795-1807 116 

35.  Apprehension  of  Annexation  by  France,  1807-1809  .        .        •     "7 

36.  Apprehension  of  Annexation  by  England,  1819-1826       .        .        .119 

37.  Apprehension  of  Cuban  Independence,  1825-1845  .        .        .        .121 


Contents  ix 


PAGE 


38.   Scheme  of  Annexation  to  the  United  States,  1848-1861    .        .        •  123 

Sl^  Period  of  First  Cuban  War,  1 868-1878 127 

40.  Period  of  Cuban  Trade,  1 878- 1 895 131 

41.  Review  of  Cuban  Policy 132 

V 

BROTHER  JONATHAN'S  COLONIES 

(^Harper's  Magazine,  February,  1899) 

42.  Conception  of  a  Colony 134 

43.  Analysis  of  American  Colonization 138 

44.  Foundations  of  a  Territorial  System,  1780-1803        ....  139 

45.  Internal  Colonies  in  the  West,  1803-1900 143 

46.  Alien  Colony  in  Lousiana,  1803-1812 145 

47.  Alien  Colony  in  Florida,  1819-1821 147 

48.  Anomalous  Colony  in  Oregon,  1 81 8-1 848 150 

49.  Negro  Colony  of  Liberia,  181 7-1861 151 

50.  Colonies  of  American  Indians,  1830-1900 153 

51.  Territorial  Slavery  as  a  Colonial  Question,  1820-1862      .                 •  >57 

52.  The  Recalcitrant  Colony  of  Utah,  1856-1895 159 

yt3.   Colonial  Conditions  during  Reconstruction,  1 865-1 873     .         .         .161 

54.  Outlying  Colonies,  1854-1900 162 

\X^-   Samoa,  1855-1900 165 

5%.   Discomforts  of  a  Colonial  Policy 167 

VI 

WHAT  THE   FOUNDERS   OF  THE  UNION  THOUGHT 

CONCERNING  TERRITORIAL   PROBLEMS 

(^Harper's  Magazine,  January,  1900) 

57.  Historical  Analysis  of  Expansion,  1775-1900    ....  172 

58.  Conquest  of  the  Northwest,  1 778-1 779 174 


Contents 


59.  Annexation  of  the  Southwest,  1 781-1783 

60.  Government  of  Annexations,  1 780-1 790   . 
6i.  Insistence  on  the  Southern  Boundary,  1 783-1 795 

62.  Interest  in  Louisiana,  1 795-1802 

63.  Annexation  of  Louisiana,  1803 

64.  Contemporary  Constitutional  Objections  to  Annexation,  1803 

65.  Contemporary  Objects  of  Expediency  against  Louisiana,  1803 

66.  Contemporary  Arguments  for  Annexation  of  Louisiana,  1803 

67.  Spirit  of  Annexation  as  to  Oregon,  1803-1807  . 


PAGB 

178 
182 

190 
194 
199 
204 
207 


VII 


THE  MONROE  DOCTRINE  AND  THE  DOCTRINE  OF 

PERMANENT   INTEREST 

(^American  Historical  Review^  October,  1901) 

68.  Various  Monroe  Doctrines 2i  i 

69.  Origin  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  1823 213 

«\  70.  Glosses  on  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  1823-1895 218 

\  71.  Changes  in  American  Conditions,  1823-1900 223 

fz.  Changes  in  European  Relations 225 

73.  Changes  in  Eastern  Affairs 229 

74.  Future  Limits  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine •  230 

75.  The  Doctrine  of  the  Future 234 

VIII 

A  WORKING  BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  AMERICAN 

DIPLOMACY 

(^American  Historical  Review,  July,  1901) 

76.  Principles 241 

77.  Bibliographical  Aids 242 


Contents  xi 


FACE 


78.  Secondary  Works 247 

A.  General  Works 248 

B.  General  Histories 250 

C.  Treatises  on  International  Law 254 

D.  Works  on  Special  Topics 258 

E.  Periodicals  containing  Articles  on  American  Diplomacy     .        .  266 

79.  Sources 269 

A.  Treaties 269 

B.  Documents 272 

C.  Cases 275 

D.  American  Correspondence 280 

E.  Foreign  Correspondence 285 

F.  American  Private  Correspondence 287 

G.  Foreign  Private  Correspondence 289 

H.  Archives 293 


THE   UNITED   STATES   AS   A  WORLD 
POWER 

A  CHAPTER  OF  NATIONAL  EXPERIENCE 

"  There  is  a  special  providence  for  little  chil-  i.  Tradition 
dren  and  the  United  States,"  says  a  philosopher,  "^^^o^**®"- 
The  good-natured  satire  suggests  our  American 
habit  of  looking  upon  our  history,  our  political 
system,  and  our  foreign  policy  as  if  they  had 
nothing  to  do  with  other  nations.  We  talk  of 
"  Old  World  "  and  "  New  World  "  as  though  the 
experience  of  mankind  could  be  cut  up  into 
sections  by  painting  lines  on  a  globe.  With  this 
sense  of  geographical  isolation  goes  a  feeling 
that  we  have  cut  loose  from  the  traditions  of 
our  ancestors,  and  indeed  that  we  have  no  an- 
cestors east  of  the  meridian  of  Passamaquoddy 
Bay.  Hawthorne  understood  better  the  place 
of  his  countrymen  in  history  when  he  called 
England  "our  old  home."  For  the  sake  of 
enjoying  the  sensation  of  being  a  peculiar  peo- 
ple, we  are  willing  to  forget  the  glorious  heritage 
of  a  thousand  years :  was  not  Augustine  our 
saint.'  and  Hildebrand  our  pope.'  and  William 


2  JVorld  Power 

of  Normandy  our  conqueror  ?  and  Elizabeth  our 
queen  ?  and  Shakespeare  our  poet  ?  and  Drake 
our  hero  and  protector  when  the  Spanish  Ar- 
mada bore  down  on  our  fathers'  shores?  The 
face  of  this  continent  is  new,  but  the  intellec- 
tual, social,  moral,  and  political  development  of 
America  is  simply  a  part  of  the  advance  of  the 
human  race.  Our  character  has  been  tempered 
by  foreign  immigration,  just  as  that  of  our 
fathers  was  tempered  by  Danes,  Saxons,  and 
Normans,  Scotch,  Welsh,  and  Irish.  There 
never  has  been  a  "  New  World  "  in  the  sense  that 
principles  have  been  here  developed  which  were 
unknown  elsewhere,  or  that  the  people  of  Amer- 
ica could  sit  quiet  while  their  cousins  in  Europe 
were  in  danger.  We  have  shared,  or  rather 
have  inherited,  the  religious  traditions  of  our 
kinsmen  oversea;  we  have  had  their  art  and 
literature ;  we  have  profited  by  their  systems  of 
education ;  we  have  used  their  inventions ;  we 
have  learned  from  their  mistakes  and  successes 
in  government.  In  return,  we  have  given  to 
mankind  the  results  of  our  experience  in  inven- 
tion, in  intellectual  growth,  in  government,  and 
in  religious  freedom. 
Truth  as  to  There  is  sometimes  supposed  to  be  a  tradition 
that  in  diplomatic  relations  America  is  isolated 
from  the  rest  of  the  world  with  which  she  is 
intellectually  and  commercially  so  closely  con- 
nected.    Historically  there  has  never  been  such 


Isolation. 


Isolation  3 

an  isolation :  from  the  earliest  colonial  times 
the  international  forces  which  moved  Europe 
have  affected  the  Western  hemisphere.  The 
settlement  of  the  colonies  caused  a  century  of 
dispute  between  England  and  Spain.  The  Trea- 
ties of  Ryswick  (1697),  Utrecht  (171 3),  Aix- 
la-Chapelle  (1748),  and  Paris  (1763)  all  had 
important  clauses  on  American  territory.  The 
Seven  Years'  War  began  in  America  in  1754 
by  the  act  of  Colonel  George  Washington. 

When,  in  the  Revolution,  the  United  States 
first  took  a  place  in  the  family  of  nations  by 
claiming  the  rights  and  privileges  of  indepen- 
dence, it  accepted  the  duties  and  obligations 
laid  upon  nations  by  the  international  law  of  the 
time.  Nor  did  the  fathers  of  the  republic  sup- 
pose that  their  influence  was  to  be  bounded  by 
the  coast  lines  of  North  and  South  America: 
their  earUest  diplomacy  was  directed  to  disturb- 
ing the  existing  European  balance  of  power  by 
transferring  their  strength  to  the  French  side ; 
and  their  physical  force  actually  turned  the  bal- 
ance for  the  time  being,  and  was  effective  in 
bringing  Great  Britain  to  a  humiliating  peace, 
besides  showing  itself  of  value  for  self-protec- 
tion. 

Ever  since  the  United  States  of  America  has  Principle  of 
been  in  the  list  of  nations,  the  question  when.  Participation, 
where,  and  to  what  degree  to  exercise  influence 
in  the  counsels  of  the  nations  has  never  been 


4  JVorld  Power 

one  of  prerogative,  but  of  expediency.     To  be 
sure,  the  policy  of  the  United  States  as  a  world 
power  has  been  carried  out  oftener  by  refusing 
the  dictation  of   other  powers  than  by  joining 
them  in  common  action ;  but  the  decision  whether 
to  act  or  to  stand  still,  or  to  remonstrate,  has 
been  reserved  to  the  judgment  of  our  pubHc 
men. 
Analysis  of         The  key  to  the  foreign  policy  of  the  United 
o/wJidr      States  is  not  to  be  found  in  any  formula  or 
Power.  maxim  of  statecraft,  but  in  deep  principles  of 

human  interest.  Phrases  like  "entangling  alli- 
ances," "  European  political  system,"  or  "  Mon- 
roe doctrine  "  are  not  laws  of  the  ten  tables ; 
they  only  express  national  convictions  for  the 
time  being  as  to  what  our  interests  are.  If  the 
United  States  has  usually  chosen  to  exercise 
its  international  influence  chiefly  in  affairs  of 
the  Americas,  it  is  because  there  our  interests 
chiefly  lie.  The  diplomatic  history  of  the  coun- 
try shows  that  the  government  has  never  hesi- 
tated to  assert  itself  anywhere  on  the  globe  if 
its  interests  seemed  sufficient.  In  such  a  crisis 
as  that  of  the  year  1898,  therefore,  the  United 
States  took  no  new  position,  but  reasserted  what 
history  shows  had  never  been  abandoned  —  the 
place  of  a  world  power. 

All  the  discussion  on  the  future  policy  of  the 
United  States  really  comes  down  to  the  question 
whether  it  is  to  the  national  interest  to  go  far 


Conditions  5 

afield  in  new  enterprises.  Some  light  may  be 
thrown  on  that  inquiry  if  we  collect,  analyze,  and 
discuss  the  instances  in  which  the  United  States 
has  exercised  its  latent  prerogatives  in  interna- 
tional concerns.  The  principal  episodes  have 
been  the  following:  (i)  The  colonial  period. 
(2)  The  Revolution.  (3)  Diplomacy  of  the  Con- 
federation. (4)  First  Napoleonic  era,  1793- 1802. 
(5)  Second  Napoleonic  era,  1803-1815.  (6)  Latin- 
America  to  1865.  (7)  The  Pacific  and  the 
East  to  1865.  (8)  European  relations  to  1865. 
(9)  The  West  Indies,  East  Indies,  and  Asia, 
since  1870. 

If  an  Aristotle  or  a  Grotius  could  have  been  2.  Conditions 
set  down  just  before  the  Revolution  to  gener-  p^^gj^* 
alize  as  to  the  future  of  North  America,  he  must 
have  predicted  that  the  New  World  would  alter 
the  history  of  mankind.  Down  to  the  discovery 
of  America  the  development  of  the  world's  his- 
tory had  for  many  centuries  been  going  forward 
jn  a  kind  of  routine :  Asia  and  Africa  were 
cut  off  by  the  Mohammedans,  and  hence  the 
idea  of  a  world  dominion  died  out ;  while  Europe 
was  slowly  crystalHzing  into  large  and  definite 
units  of  power. 

The  discovery  of  America  brought  a  new  and  America  a 
incalculable  element  into   the    plans  of   states-  '^^^^' 
men  and  the  predictions  of  historians,  and  fur- 
nished a  new  subject  for  international  contests ; 
for,  whether  divided  among  Europeans  powers 


6  World  Power 

or  independent,  this  continent  would  alter  the 
aims  and  redistribute  the  military  strength  of 
the  nations.  In  geographical  position,  in  com- 
merce, in  the  movement  of  persons,  and  in 
intellectual  and  political  inventiveness,  the  peo- 
ple whose  descendants  now  constitute  the  United 
States  have  from  the  beginning  exemplified  the 
elements  of  a  world  power. 
Geographical  The  territory  of  the  United  States  lies  athwart 
Situation.  ^  continent :  some  other  countries  in  the  world 
possess  an  interior  equally  fertile,  if  less  acces- 
sible; no  other  has  also  a  frontage  on  two 
oceans,  with  a  territory  all  in  a  temperate  cli- 
mate. The  commercial  and  strategic  strength 
of  the  position  is  immensely  greater  than  that 
of  British  America,  squeezed  into  the  narrow 
passage  between  the  Lakes  and  the  inhospi- 
table country  south  of  Hudson's  Bay ;  or  that  of 
Mexico,  a  fringe  of  unhealthy  coast  lands,  with 
an  interior  nearly  barren.  If  Germany,  Holland, 
Switzerland,  and  North  Italy  were  fused  into 
one  country,  st -etching  from  the  Baltic  to  the 
Mediterranean,  the  geographical  position  of  that 
country  in  Europe  would  be  less  advantageous 
than  is  ours  in  America.  In  fact,  the  geographi- 
cal position  of  the  United  States  as  the  seat  of  a 
world  power  is  even  stronger  than  the  compar- 
ison suggests ;  for  its  immense  continental  area 
is  practically  impenetrable  by  invaders,  and  yet 
gives  a  south   frontage  which  dominates   both 


Conditions  7 

the  West  Indies  and  South  America.  Geo- 
graphically, therefore,  the  territory  of  the  United 
States  is  suited  for  a  world  power. 

Commercially   the   United    States    has    from  Commercial 
earliest  colonial  times  showed  its  importance  to  Situation. 
the  world.     American  fish,  masts,  pig-iron,  and 
ships  were  standard  articles  of  commerce  for  a 
century  and  a  half.    At  present  our  combined  im- 
ports and  exports  count  up  to  two  billions  a  year. 
The  United  States  lies  on  or  near  two  of  the 
world's  greatest  highways  :  it  is  midway  between  Forks  of  the 
the  coasts  of  Asia  and  those  of  modern  Europe,  ^°^^* 
and  there  is  already  a  considerable  traffic  from 
these  termini  across  the  American  continent ; 
and  it  is  near  the  diverging  lines  from  the  Eng- 
lish Channel  and  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar  to  the 
whole  coasts  of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  and  of  South 
America,  both  east  and  west.      Should  the  Isth- 
mus be  pierced  by  a  canal,  both  the  great  trade 
routes  just  mentioned  will  be  of  even  greater 
consequence  to  the  world  than  they  are  now. 

The  greatness  of  the  United  States  in  com- 
merce is  due  not  so  much  to  holding  roads  as  to 
putting  passengers,  freight,  and  carriers  upon 
them.  In  the  movement  of  persons  to  and  fro  Nfovement 
across  the  ocean,  the  United  States  has  been  o^p*^^"^- 
the  focus  of  the  most  tremendous  hegira  of  civ- 
ilized people  which  the  world  has  ever  seen : 
from  1820  to  1900  more  than  19,000,000  persons 
came  to  our  shores  to  make  their  homes  here,  a 


8  World  Power 

number  greater  than  the  present  population  of 
Spain ;  in  the  last  ten  years  enough  people  have 
emigrated  to  America  to  found  another  Belgium. 
There  are  now  within  our  limits  more  Germans 
and  children  of  Germans  than  in  Bavaria ;  half  as 
many  Scandinavians  as  in  Norway;  more  EngHsh 
than  in  Liverpool  and  Manchester  together.  And 
the  tide  of  travel  eastward — chiefly  visitors — also 
numbers  hundreds  of  thousands  every  year. 

This  tide  of  travel  backward  and  forward, 
not  only  gives  to  millions  of  our  people,  includ- 
ing thousands  of  native-born  Americans,  an  in- 
terest in  the  lands  from  which  they  come ;  it 
also  gives  to  foreign  countries  an  interest  in  us. 
The  most  evident  tie  between  the  two  sides  of 
the  ocean  is  the  enormous  reciprocal  com- 
merce :  when  the  United  States  exports  raw 
products  and  manufactures  amounting  to  over 
;S5 1, 300,000,000  in  a  single  year,  millions  of  peo- 
ple must  know  that  America  is  a  vast  country ; 
the  blue-painted  oil  barrel,  the  gay  label  of  the 
fruit  can,  the  American  reaper  and  locomotive, — 
all  are  spreading  abroad  the  might  of  America. 
Movement  of  In  unmatcrial  things  the  influence  of  the 
Standards,  world  on  America  and  the  world  influence  of 
Americans  are  equally  felt.  Emigrants  and 
travellers,  books  and  newspapers,  bring  Euro- 
pean experiences  and  carry  American  ideas. 
Two  illustrations  of  this  interdependence  may  be 
mentioned :  one  of  the  causes  of  the  emancipa- 


Colonial  Period  9 

tion  of  the  slaves  was  the  conviction  of  the  North 
that  the  rest  of  the  civilized  world  was  against 
us;  and  the  success  of  the  United  States  in 
federal  government  has  been  a  lesson  eagerly 
studied  by  the  constitution-makers  of  Germany, 
Switzerland,  Canada,  and  Australia. 

Industrial  inventions  fly  as  fast  and  as  far  as 
governmental.  The  American  telephone  rings 
in  Russia,  and  the  Rontgen  X-rays  penetrate  to 
Alaska.  The  intellectual  life  of  Europeans  and 
Americans  is  one,  and  it  is  impossible  that  their 
political  lives  should  be  separated. 

America  has  never  known  a  policy  of  isola-  3.  Colonial 

tion,  and  least  of  all  in  the  period  of  coloniza-  ,f"***!' 
'  ^  1492- 1775. 

tion.  The  three  great  causes  of  international 
conflicts — territory,  commerce,  and  dominion — 
were  all  potent  in  the  Western  world  from  the 
earliest  settlements  down  to  the  Revolution. 
England  and  France  came  to  blows  in  America  Rival  terri- 
in  161 3,  and  fought  over  territory  at  intervals  till  °"  "^' 
1763.  Spanish  claims  lasted  from  1497  to  1814, 
and  still  smoulder  on  the  frontiers  of  Belize  and 
of  British  Guiana.  Indeed,  the  Venezuelan  ques- 
tion is  the  last  stage  of  a  warfare  between  the 
English  and  the  Dutch  for  the  possession  of 
American  soil.  The  Swedes  were  plundered  of 
their  American  colonies  on  the  Delaware  by  the 
Dutch  within  eighteen  years  of  their  foundation. 
New  York  and  the  Delaware  were  soon  after 
taken  from  the  Dutch  as  an  incident  in  a  Euro- 


Trade. 


lo  World  Power 

pean  naval  war.  English  sailors  began  to  fight 
to  get  the  trade  of  the  Spanish  colonies  in  1 568, 
and  kept  the  process  up  much  of  the  time  till 
those  colonies  became  independent  in  1823, 
From  the  earliest  history  of  civilized  America, 
it  has  interested  and  occupied  European  coun- 
tries, and  reacted  on  their  history. 
Rivalries  of  The  commerce  of  the  English  colonies  with 
the  mother  country  and  with  the  West  Indies 
and  Spanish  continental  possessions  disturbed 
the  counsels  of  Europe.  For  two  centuries 
colonial  commerce  led  to  elaborate  systems  of 
legislation  by  every  colonizing  country,  and  was 
the  subject  of  many  treaties,  the  purpose  of 
every  country  being  to  forbid  other  people  to 
trade  with  her  own  colonies,  and  to  enjoy  the 
monopoUzed  trade  of  others'  colonies.  Immigra- 
tion, and  especially  the  carrying  of  the  subjects 
of  one  country  into  the  country  of  another,  was 
then  and  now  a  source  of  great  diplomatic  diffi- 
culty, —  as  when  the  French  tried  to  settle  in  Port 
Royal  in  1 563,  and  the  Palatine  Germans  were 
brought  into  New  York  early  in  the  eighteenth 
century.  America  was  a  favorite  resort  for 
irregular  traders  of  all  nations  and  of  no  nation. 
Smuggling  both  into  the  English  colonies  and 
by  the  colonies  into  the  West  Indies  was  almost 
a  discreet  profession,  and  was  practised  by  no 
less  a  man  than  John  Hancock.  Pirates  of  all 
races  and  colors  lay  in  wait  outside  the  harbors 


Colonial  Period  1 1 

from  the  Rio  de  la  Plata  to  the  St.  Lawrence, 
and  proved  an  international  scourge.  The  slave 
trade,  instituted  for  the  benefit  of  America,  be- 
came a  matter  of  fierce  international  dispute, 
and  it  was  a  victory  of  English  diplomacy  when 
by  the  Assiento  of  171 3  the  importation  of 
negroes  for  the  Spanish  colonies  was  made  an 
English  monopoly.  Both  the  export  and  the 
import  trade  of  the  American  colonies  of  all 
nations  were  European  questions,  settled  in  the 
cabinets  of  European  powers. 

In  the   many  wars  of  the   seventeenth   and  Colonial 
eighteenth    centuries    the    American    colonies  ^*"* 
showed  how  intimate  a  part  they  had  in  Euro- 
pean relations.      No  accident   made  the  West 
Indies  and  the  Gulf  of  St.  Lawrence  fighting- 
ground  in  so  many  of  the  naval  wars   of  the 
eighteenth  century :  the  smaller  islands  of  the 
group  were  repeatedly  prizes  of  war ;  the  Span- 
ish coast  cities  on  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  were  often 
attacked,  and  in  the  siege  of  Cartagena  in  1740  Cartagena, 
the  English  colonists  took  a  part,  and  two  thou-  ^^'*°' 
sand  of  them  left  their  bones  to  show  what  it 
means  to  war  against  a  tropical  climate.     Nor 
was  it  by  mere  chance  that,  while  the  British, 
aided  by  their  colonists,  took  Quebec  in    1629  Quebec, 
and    1759,  Louisburg   in    1745    and    1758,  and   h^"^^""^^" 
Havana  in   1762,  no  foreign  fleet  ever  held  an   New  York. 
English  colonial  port  in  North  America,  except 
New  York  for  a  few  months  in  1673  and  1674. 


12 


World  Power 


French  and 
Indian  War, 
1754-1763. 


4.  Revola- 
tionary 
Period, 
1775-1783- 


In  the  French  and  Indian  War  the  international 
importance  of  America  was  brought  out  with 
more  distinctness  than  ever  before.  The  far- 
reaching  Seven  Years'  War,  in  which  nearly  every 
European  country  was  eventually  a  party,  began 
when  George  Washington  fired  on  the  French 
at  Great  Meadows  in  1754.  It  gave  the  colonists 
the  best  opportunity  they  had  ever  had  to  show 
their  prowess  at  sea,  and  it  ended  by  a  terri- 
torial rearrangement  of  America  which  marked 
the  humiliation  of  France  as  a  European  power ; 
at  the  same  time  it  cleared  up  the  contest 
for  the  possession  of  America,  and  set  free  the 
Mississippi  Valley,  so  that  it  could  eventually 
become  the  centre  of  a  new  world  power.  Said 
the  London  Gazette  in  1765  :  "  Little  doubt  can 
be  entertained  that  America  will  in  time  be  the 
greatest  and  most  prosperous  empire  that  per- 
haps the  world  has  ever  seen." 

The  place  which  the  colonists  made  among 
the  nations  was  due  partly  to  their  own  efforts, 
and  partly  to  the  policy,  the  arms,  and  the  di- 
plomacy of  England.  One  of  the  early  steps  in 
the  American  Revolution  was  the  taking  over 
by  the  Continental  Congress  of  the  foreign 
powers  which,  till  then,  had  been  exercised  by 
the  English  government ;  and  the  little  nation 
at  once  took  a  place  as  a  power  having  world- 
wide influence.  Within  three  years  from  the 
beginning  of  the  struggle  the  United  States  had 


Revolution  1 3 

asserted  its  place  as  a  belligerent  on  land,  had 
fitted  out  a  destructive  navy,  had  organized  a 
diplomatic  corps,  and  had  made  a  treaty  of 
alliance  with  one  of  the  two  most  powerful  na- 
tions of  that  time. 

The  first  evidence  of  a  national  life  recog- 
nized outside  the  lines  of  the  continental  troops 
was  the  struggle  with  the  English  commissioners 
to  get  the  treatment  due  belligerents  in  arms.  Belligerency, 
When  the  commander-in-chief  of  the  American  ^'^^' 
forces  in  1776  declined  to  receive  a  letter  ad- 
dressed "To  George  Washington,  Esq.,  &c., 
&c.,  &c.,"  he  was  standing  for  the  military 
rights  of  an  independent  nation.  Exchange  of 
prisoners,  official  communications,  administration 
of  prize  law,  the  treatment  of  privateers,  —  all 
these  evidences  of  an  international  status  were 
at  last  accorded.  The  Americans  speedily 
proved  what  they  could  accomplish  in  war  by 
the  captures  made  by  their  regular  and  privateer  capture  and 
navy.  At  the  beginning  of  the  struggle,  John  ^'*** 
Adams  said  that  he  proposed  to  "  let  loose  upon 
the  ocean "  the  fishermen  of  New  England ; 
and  he  was  told  that  "  it  was  an  infant  taking 
a  mad  bull  by  the  horns."  These  were  the 
days  of  great  enterprises.  One  merchant  of 
Newburyport,  Nathaniel  Tracy,  owned  a  fleet 
of  120  vessels,  of  which  19  were  privateers,  and 
24  more  bore  letters  of  marque  authorizing  them 
to  capture  the  enemy's  vessels;  and  his  ships 


14  IVorld  Power 

brought  home  prizes  which  sold  even  in  the  con- 
fusion of  the  times  for  over  three  million  dollars 
in  specie.  In  December,  1775,  Congress  ordered 
17  cruisers;  and  these  vessels,  together  with 
the  privateers,  in  about  a  year  captured  250 
English  West  Indiamen ;  in  1777  more  than 
450  British  ships  were  captured,  including  160 
African  traders.  Up  to  1780  the  prize  courts 
of  the  Cape  Ann  district  in  Massachusetts  had 
condemned  818  prizes.  No  wonder  the  in- 
surance on  English  merchantmen  went  up  to 
twenty-eight  per  cent. 

To  be  sure,  many  hundreds  of  American  ves- 
sels were  also  captured  ;  and  at  the  end  of  the 
war,  out  of  Nathaniel  Tracy's  hundred  and 
twenty' ships,  but  twenty  were  left,  and  he  was 
bankrupted  by  his  losses.  Nevertheless,  the 
new  nation  showed  an  unexpected  power  of  in- 
flicting damage  on  the  greatest  naval  power  in 
the  world,  and  it  strengthened  the  little  republic 
at  home  and  abroad. 

Yet  it  took  some  time  to  convince  the  world 
that  the  Americans  could  protect  their  own 
rights.  In  1779  three  valuable  prizes  made  by 
John  Paul  Jones's  squadron  put  into  the  port  of 
Bergen,  and  were  by  the  government  of  Den- 
mark turned  back  again  to  the  British,  and  no 
indemnity  could  ever  be  secured. 
First  foreign  The  next  Step  in  establishing  the  nation  as  a 
Office,  1775.    power  was  the  organization  of  a  foreign  depart- 


Revolution  1 5 

mcnt.  November  29, 1775,  was  formed  a  "  Com- 
mittee for  the  sole  purpose  of  corresponding  with 
our  friends  in  Great  Britain,  Ireland,  and  other 
parts  of  the  world,"  which  speedily  became 
known  as  the  "  Committee  of  Secret  Correspond- 
ence," and  in  April,  1777,  was  officially  styled 
"Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs."  This  first 
Department  of  State,  on  December  12,  1775, 
wrote  its  first  instructions  to  foreign  agents; 
shortly  after,  it  received  a  French  agent;  and 
on  March  3,  1776,  it  drew  up  instructions  to 
Silas  Deane,  our  first  envoy  to  a  foreign  country. 
In  September,  1776,  a  regular  embassy  of  three  First  Minis- 
—  Franklin,  Deane,  and  Lee  —  was  commis-  **^"*  ^^^* 
sioned ;  and  in  December,  i  ^^6^  it  was  resolved 
to  send  commissioners  to  Austria,  Spain,  Prussia, 
and  Tuscany. 

Anybody  may  "call  spirits  from  the  vasty 
deep  " :  the  Confederate  States  of  America,  in 
1 86 1,  got  so  far  as  to  send  ministers  abroad; 
but,  for  the  Continental  Congress,  the  spirits  did 
come  when  it  did  call  for  them.  His  most  Chris- 
tian Majesty  of  France  held  out  the  golden 
sceptre.  The  American  ministers,  of  whom 
Franklin  was  chief,  were  received  at  first  unoffi- 
cially ;  but  on  February  6,  1778,  the  king  sealed  First  foreign 
his  good  will  by  two  treaties  of  alliance  and  Treaty,  1778. 
commerce.  Besides  sympathy  with  a  struggling 
people,  there  were  reasons  of  interest  in  the 
minds  of  the  French  statesmen.     They  saw  in 


i6 


fVorid  Power 


Armed 

Neutrality, 

1780-1782. 


the  Revolution  an  opportunity  of  bringing  about 
two  favorite  objects :  inflicting  a  wound  on  an 
enemy,  and  breaking  up  the  English  monopoly 
of  trade  to  the  continental  colonies.  The 
United  States  would  not  have  been  recognized 
had  it  not  captured  Burgoyne  and  aimed  to  cap- 
ture Clinton ;  and  it  would  not  have  been  wel- 
comed as  an  ally  had  not  France  had  a  keen 
sense  of  the  value  of  trade  with  England  up  to 
1775,  a  trade  which  might  be  diverted  to  French 
merchants.  In  any  case,  the  treaties  were  none 
the  less  an  admission  of  the  United  States  into 
the  sisterhood  of  nations,  and  on  that  account 
were  a  reason  for  a  declaration  of  war  by  Great 
Britain  on  France. 

The  good  will  of  France  was  expected  to  de- 
cide several  other  powers  to  be  sisterly  to  the 
little  Western  stranger.  Perhaps  Congress  was 
too  much  elated  by  the  new  dignity ;  at  any  rate, 
no  other  European  power  recognized  us  till  the 
end  of  the  war.  When  Lee  went  to  Berlin, 
Frederick  the  Great  declined  to  receive  him, 
and  intimated  that  he  meant  "  to  go  over  to  the 
side  on  which  Fortune  shall  declare  herself." 
In  1780  came  the  earliest  opportunity  to  join  in 
a  European  coalition  —  the  so-called  "Armed 
Neutrality"  —  of  Russia,  Holland,  and  the 
Northern  powers,  formed  to  protect  their  mer- 
chantmen against  British  captures.  The  United 
States  was  ready  to  take  part  in  this  European 


Revolution  1 7 

concert  of  powers ;  and  sent  to  Russia  Francis 
Dana  of  Massachusetts,  commissioned  "to  ac- 
cede to  the  convention  of  the  said  neutral  and 
belhgerent  powers,  protecting  the  freedom  of 
commerce  and  the  rights  of  nations."  Russia 
would  not  receive  him,  and  our  adhesion  was  not 
accepted.  On  the  other  hand,  England  put 
Holland  speedily  out  of  armed  neutrality,  and 
into  armed  hostility,  by  making  war  on  her  be- 
cause of  supposed  negotiations  with  the  United 
States. 

Meanwhile  the  Americans,  with  the  aid  of 
their  French  aUies,  had  made  true  their  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  of  1776,  by  proving  them- 
selves separate.      In  1781,  while  a  French  fleet  Vorktown. 
staved  off  the  British  fleet  of  reUef,  a  combined  *^^'' 
American   and    French    army   captured   Com- 
wallis  at  Yorktown,  and  virtually  ended  the  war. 
The  effect  of  this  practical  success  was  instantly 
seen  in  the  increased  respect  paid  the  United 
States  by  all  European   powers.     George   the 
Third,  on  March  27,  1782,  gave  up  the  struggle 
with  the  words  :      "At  last  the  fatal  day  has 
come  which  the  misfortune  of  the  times  and  the 
sudden  changes  of  sentiment  of  the  House  of 
Commons  have  driven  me  to."      In  the  negotia-  Negotiations 
tions  which  occupied  the  next  eight  months,  the  ^o^  p^ace, 
position   of  the   United   States   was  distinctly 
taken  as  the  peer  of  England  and  France,  and 
the  superior  of  the  other  parties  to  the   war, 


i8 


World  Power 


Indepen- 
dence recog- 
nized, 1782. 


France  ig- 
nored, 1782. 


Western 

Boundaries, 

1782. 


Spain  and  Holland.  Our  envoys,  Franklin, 
John  Adams,  and  Jay,  the  ablest  embassy  ever 
commissioned  by  the  United  States,  sat  almost 
as  arbiters  in  what  was  virtually  a  European 
congress. 

The  first  triumph  was  over  England.  That 
power  long  insisted  that  the  recognition  of  inde- 
pendence should  not  be  made  "without  the 
price  set  on  it,  which  alone  could  make  the 
kingdom  consent  to  it";  but  the  Americans 
refused  to  enter  on  any  other  questions  till  that 
point  was  conceded,  and  they  had  the  satisfac- 
tion of  a  full  recognition,  preceding  all  negotia- 
tion in  detail. 

The  second  victory  was  over  France.  In- 
structed by  Congress  to  make  no  agreements 
except  by  the  advice  and  approval  of  the  French 
government,  the  three  members  broke  their  in- 
structions by  unanimous  agreement,  and  thereby 
secured  a  safe  and  speedy  peace. 

The  third  evidence  of  consequence  as  a  world 
power  was  when  Spain  and  France  interposed 
in  the  negotiations  to  push  the  boundaries  of 
the  new  republic  northward  and  eastward ; 
and,  notwithstanding,  the  line  was  drawn  far 
to  the  south  and  west.  As  the  foreign  nego- 
tiators gave  way,  on  point  after  point,  well 
might  the  Parisians  quote  the  famous  tribute 
to  Franklin  : 

"  Eripuit  ccelo  fulmen  sceptrumque  tyrannis." 


Confederation  19 

We  have  long  since  become  accustomed  to  the 
birth  of  new  nations  :  our  grandfathers  saw  the 
Latin- American  powers  gain  their  independence; 
their  sons  have  seen  Germany  and  Italy  and 
Japan  constituted ;  we  have  seen  Bulgaria  and 
Servia  created,  and  have  even  been  godfathers 
to  a  Hawaiian  and  a  Cuban  repubUc.  Hence  impression 
we  do  not  appreciate  the  impression  made  on  o"^Mankmd, 
men's  minds  by  the  appearance  of  the  new 
constellation  of  thirteen  stars  in  the  political 
heavens,  nor  the  reputation  which  was  made 
by  the  preUminaries  of  peace  in  1782. 

The  first  effect,  and  one  of  great  importance,  5.  Diplomacy 
was  the  desire  of   European  powers  to  make  federation" 
treaties,  every  such  treaty  being  a  solemn  wel-  1783-1793- 
come  into  the  family  of  nations.    Holland  came  Dutch  com- 
first,  and  John  Adams  has  handed  down  memo-  "reaty  1782. 
rials   of    his    slow    dealings   with    their    High 
Mightinesses,  the  States  General,  and  the  Grand 
Pensionary ;  of  the  slow-dribbling  "  ad  referen- 
dum "  to  the  Provinces  on  every  important  ques- 
tion.    He   describes  his  visits  of  state  to  the 
official  residences  of  the  deputies,  every  one  of 
whom  was  delighted   at   his   propositions,  but 
must  refer  them  to  his  home  government,  where 
"every  city  is  considered  an  independent  repub- 
lic."    After  nearly  a  year  of  this  stately  dealing, 
on  October  8,  1782,  Adams  secured  the  desired 
treaty.     Again  the  opportunity  came   to   enter 
into  a  European  connection,  for  Holland  pressed 


20  World  Power 

Adams  to  accede  to  the  Armed  Neutrality ;  but 
the  war  was  over,  and  he  avoided  the  obligation. 
In  1783  the  Dutch  sent  a  minister  to  the  United 
States,  who  with  the  French  minister  made  up 
for  the  time  the  diplomatic  corps, 
othergenerai       Meanwhile,  in   1782   and   1783,  Austria  was 
i^S-Ts        "^g^"S  ^  treaty  in  behalf  of  what  is  now  Bel- 
gium ;  the  German  ambassador  came  to  talk  to 
John  Adams  about  encouraging  German  emigra- 
tion  to  America ;   the   free   city  of    Hamburg 
offered  free  trade ;  and  Portugal  and  Denmark 
signed  treaties.     Sweden  in  1783  and  Prussia  in 
1785  went  farther  by  actually  making  commer- 
cial treaties,  and  in  1784  Thomas  Jefferson  was 
sent  out  with  a  general  commission  to  make 
commercial    arrangements.      The    climax    was 
Reception  of   reached   when   John   Adams  appeared   at   the 
Adams,  1785.  Q^y^^-^^  q[  g^-  james,  and  was  received  by  George 

the  Third  with  unexpected  good-nature.  "  There 
is  an  opinion  among  some  people  that  you  are 
not  the  most  attached  of  all  your  countrymen  to 
the  manners  of  France,"  said  the  king,  "  That 
opinion,  sire,"  replied  Adams,  "  is  not  mistaken. 
I  must  avow  to  your  Majesty  that  I  have  no 
attachment  but  to  my  own  country." 
Strength  of  We  are  accustomed  to  think  of  the  United 
tfie  United      States  of  America,  as  it  emerged  from  the  ex- 

States,  1783.  '  ^ 

hausting  conflict  of  the  Revolution,  as  a  feeble 
nation  with  a  very  inefficient  form  of  govern- 
ment, and  divided  within  itself.     To  her  neigh- 


Confederation  2 1 

bors,  however,  the  new  republic  was  a  power 
to  reckon  with  in  any  political  controversies. 
At  the  beginning  of  the  constitutional  period,  in 
1789,  the  United  States  had  a  population  of  but 
four  millions,  but  that  was  more  than  the  popu- 
lation of  Holland  or  Sweden,  or  Denmark  or 
Portugal,  or  the  two  Sicilies  or  Saxony.  The 
commerce  of  the  United  States,  counting  im- 
ports and  exports,  was  but  forty-three  millions, 
but  it  was  larger  than  that  of  Austria,  or  of  the 
Prussian  Baltic  provinces.  The  Revolutionary 
army  had  never  been  more  than  18,000  men  in 
the  field;  but  England  could  not  send  men 
enough  to  destroy  it. 

To  be  sure,  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
were  faulty ;  but  they  described  the  most  effec- 
tive federal  government  that  had  ever  been 
known  —  a  model  of  flexibility  and  force  com- 
pared with  the  then  existing  Dutch,  Swiss,  and 
German  confederations.  Congress  was  inept; 
but  it  had  in  its  membership,  or  in  the  executive 
offices  to  which  it  appointed,  Washington,  Jef- 
ferson, Madison,  Hamilton,  Franklin,  and  John 
Jay.  The  state  governments  were  confused, 
and  hardly  knew  how  to  maintain  their  author- 
ity ;  but  they  were  almost  the  only  really 
vigorous,  growing  free  republics  left  in  the 
world.  We  measure  the  nation  during  this 
"  Critical  Period  "  by  the  government  that  fol- 
lowed the  experiment,  instead  of  observing  the 


22  World  Power 

reputation  of  our  fathers  for  happiness,  pros- 
perity, and  freedom.  In  the  economic  condi- 
tions of  that  time  the  population,  trade,  and 
naval  strength  of  the  country  made  it  a  power, 
and  even  a  world  power.  During  the  next 
twenty-five  years  it  came  to  have  the  second 
merchant  marine  in  the  world,  and  in  the  year 
1807  the  volume  of  its  trade  was  1^246,000,000. 
Decline  of  Yet  during  the  ten  years  1783- 1793,  the  pres- 

Amencan  ^.jg^  q£  ^^  country  as  a  world  power  declined. 
1783-1793.  The  reason  is  that  the  powers  with  whom  we 
made  treaties  quickly  discovered  that  treaties 
do  not  necessarily  mean  trade.  Holland  found 
that  she  sold  few  goods,  and  got  payment  for 
them  out  of  the  proceeds  of  money  which  she 
herself  lent  the  nation.  France  was  bitterly 
disappointed  that  the  American  merchants  went 
back  to  British  commercial  connections.  The 
English,  on  their  side,  expected  the  United  States 
to  throw  over  the  French  altogether,  and  give 
preference  to  English  trade;  and  having  the 
market,  the  English  government  would  grant 
no  privileges  in  home  ports.  Spain  was  ag- 
grieved at  the  notion  of  colonies  setting  up  for 
themselves,  and  found  it  possible  to  block  the 
wheels  of  negotiation  by  proposing  to  refuse  an 
avenue  to  the  sea  by  the  Mississippi  River. 
All  four  of  the  maritime  nations  with  whom  we 
had  most  direct  commercial  and  political  rela- 
tions found  themselves  disappointed  and  sore. 


Neutyality  1% 

Hence  the  great  influence  which  the  United  Lessons  in 
States  exerted  in  these  ten  years  was  that  of  R^^oi"*'^"- 
example :  the  Spanish  colonies  took  a  leaf  from 
the  book  of  the  Revolution ;  France  was  de- 
lighted with  the  idea  of  republican  government ; 
the  other  British  colonies  began  to  profit  by 
the  protest  of  the  thirteen  colonies  against 
too  much  control.  The  effect  of  this  silent 
influence  was  seen  when,  in  1789,  the  French 
Revolution  burst  out  and  enthusiastic  French 
statesmen  tried  to  copy  American  institutions, 
even  to  instituting  town  meetings  in  rural  France ; 
when  Tom  Paine  and  Barlow  had  seats  in  the 
French  convention.  Wherever  in  the  Western 
world  men  were  thinking,  the  influence  of  the 
United  States  was  at  work. 

A  new  danger,  and  a  new  opportunity  to  act  6.  First 
as  became  a  world  power,  was  the  beginning  of  Era^rwt^ 
the  Napoleonic  wars.     So  far  in  American  his-  iSoa. 
tory  the  status  of  the  United  States  as  a  world 
power  had  been  that  of  a  poor  relation  of  some 
great  European  power :  during  the  Revolution 
we  were  allied  with  France ;  after  the  Revolu-  Need  of 
tion,  when  commerce  was  the  principal  interna-    *°    °°' 
tional  question,  our   commerce  went  to  Great 
Britain.      Said    an    Englishman   to   Adams   in 
1782:  "You  are  afraid  of  being  made  the  tool 
of  the  powers  of  Europe."      "  Indeed  I  am," 
answered  Adams.     "  What  powers  ? "     "  All  of 
them.     It   is   obvious   that    all   the   powers   of 


24  World  Power 

Europe  will  be  continuously  manoeuvring  with 
us  to  work  us  into  their  real  or  imaginary  bal- 
ances of  power." 
NeutnOity,  Adams's  prophecy  was  realized  in  1 793-1794, 

1793.  when  the  United  States  made  the  first  attempt 

to  carry  out  a  policy  in  which  the  deciding  con- 
sideration should  be  the  welfare,  protection,  and 
honor  of  the  United  States.  To  take  up  and 
maintain  a  position  of  neutrality,  amidst  the 
clash  and  danger  of  European  wars,  was  in  itself 
a  proof  that  the  real  independent  strength  of 
the  nation  was  greater  than  it  had  been  even  in 
the  bold  period  of  the  peace  negotiations  of  1782, 
In  issuing  his  proclamation  of  neutrality  in  April, 
1793,  Washington  was  therefore  declaring  the 
right  of  the  new  nation  to  exercise  the  sacred 
national  privilege  of  determining  a  policy  for 
herself.  It  was  never  Washington's  purpose 
to  withdraw  his  country  from  an  attention  to  or 
an  influence  on  foreign  relations  ;  but  to  fight  or 
to  keep  peace  for  the  interests  of  America,  and 
not  for  the  interests  of  third  parties. 

Washington's  policy  was  shown  to  be  the 
nation's  policy,  when,  in  1793,  Genet  so  blindly 
tried  to  make  the  United  States  a  base  of  naval 
operations  against  the  British ;  it  was  shown 
Jay  Negotia-  equally  in  1794,  when  England  by  unjustified 
tion.  1794.  captures  of  vessels  and  impressment  of  seamen 
expressed  her  contempt  of  neutrals.  It  was 
shown  in  1795,  when  the  country  took  advantage 


Napoleonic  Era  25 

of  a  fortunate  crisis  in  Spanish  affairs  to  secure  Spanisi 
a  commercial  treaty  and  a  settlement  of  boun-  '^""^^y- ^^'S- 
daries  with  Spain ;  it  was  shown  in  1 798,  when 
the  French  government  refused  to  receive  our  French  War, 
envoys  unless  they  should  buy  their  way  to  a  ^798-i8oa 
treaty,  and  the  United  States  went  to  war  with 
France.     The  intention  to  use  force  was  enough 
to  bring  France  to  a  peace  in  1800;  and  the 
century  closed  with  a  wholesome  national  self- 
confidence,  and  the  respect  of  foreign  countries. 

On  the  whole,  the  reputation  of  the  United  7.  Second 
States  as  an  independent  power,  and  not  a  satel-  EnTiSca- 
lite,  grew  till  the  end  of  the  first  ten  years  of  iSis- 
the  Napoleonic  wars,  at  the  peace  of  Amiens  in 
1802.    An  enhanced  reputation  was  gained  from 
1802  to  1804  by  the  spirited  treatment  of  the  Barbary 
Barbary  States  by  the  United  States :  England,   J^'^'  '^" 
France,  Spain,  and  the  United  States  for  many 
years  humbly  paid  backsheesh  to  the  pirates ; 
the  United  States  was  first  of  all  nations  to  try 
on  the  pirates  the  effect  of  iron  and  lead  instead 
of  gold  and  silver. 

At  about  the  same  time  the  consciousness  of 
national  power  was  renewed  by  the  annexation  Annexation 
of  Louisiana  in  1803.^  So  far  as  Napoleon  was  J^"^'^"*" 
concerned,  he  simply  made  up  his  mind  that  he 
could  not  spare  the  funds  necessary  to  occupy 
Louisiana,  and  it  was  pleasanter  to  sell  it  to  the 
United  States  than  to  have  it  seized  by  a  British 

^  See  Chapters  v,  vi. 


26  IVoyld  Power 

fleet ;  but  by  the  annexation  the  commerce,  the 
pride,  and  the  international  consequence  of  this 
nation  were  all  increased. 

Just  when   the    United   States   had  become 
established  as   a   power   of  importance,   came 
the    second    period    of    the   Napoleonic   wars; 
Neutral  and   from  1803  to   18 12   the  country  took  the 

Trade,  1803-  lowest  place  among  the  nations  which  she  has 
ever  occupied.  Conditions  were  cruelly  hard 
for  small  maritime  powers.  France  and  Eng- 
land were  grappling  in  a  struggle  which  meant 
the  destruction  of  one  or  the  other,  and  both 
powers  enjoyed  capturing  American  merchant- 
men ;  while  American  shipowners  were  adepts 
in  evading  their  neutral  duties.  During  these 
nine  years  of  peace  with  Europe,  English  cruis- 
Captures.  ers  and  privateers  captured  917  American  ships, 
and  impressed  about  3000  American  sailors ; 
and  the  French  took  558  ships.  Many  of  these 
vessels  were  subject  to  capture  for  various  vio- 
lations of  international  law ;  more  of  them  were 
seized  under  Orders  in  Council  and  Decrees, 
which  virtually  authorized  the  robbery  of  the 
property  of  innocent  neutrals,  bound  on  law- 
ful voyages,  each  belligerent  trying  to  inflict 
a  serious  injury  on  its  rival  through  a  great 
injury  to  a  third  power.  Great  Britain  added 
an  indignity  which  cruelly  wounded  the  national 
pride,  by  the  impressment  of  seamen.  Napo- 
leon, on  the  other  side,  showed  a  certain  sense 


Neutral  Trade  27 

of  the  humors  of  brigandage,  —  as  when  he 
confiscated  vessels  on  the  ground  that  the 
United  States  had  forbidden  them  to  leave 
port,  and  he  was  therefore  enforcing  Ameri- 
can laws. 

The  reasons  why  the  United  States  submitted 
for  nine  years  to  such  aggressions  are  many : 
one  was  Jefferson's  confidence  in  the  Embargo 
—  a  device  by  which  the  Americans  destroyed 
their  own  trade  so  as  to  cut  off  supplies  from 
the  belligerents,  who  could  get  on  without  them ; 
another  was  the  smallness  of  the  navy ;  another 
was  the  fact  that  New  England  shipowners, 
who  had  suffered  most  from  foreign  depreda- 
tions, were  making  so  much  money  that  they 
were  not  disposed  to  fight.  The  main  reason 
was  the  exasperation  of  Napoleon  and  of  the 
English,  which  made  them  willing  to  incur  later 
decades  of  national  hatred  in  America  if  they 
could  damage  each  other.  Notwithstanding  all  Prosperity 
aggressions,  the  carrying  trade  enlarged,  the  s,a'^'[ng 
imports  ran  up  and  the  exports  increased  enor-  Aggressions, 
mously,  till  the  United  States  itself  cut  them 
off. 

Though  the  War  of  18 12  was  fought  for  a  Effect  of  War 
principle,  it  was  begun  with  little  foresight  and  °'  ^^** 
preparation.     The  principle  was  the  right  of  a 
neutral  to  carry  on   peaceful   trade  with  both 
belligerents ;    unfortunately,  the  United    States 
waited  till  the  European  system  of  commercial 


28 


IVorld  Power 


Enhanced 
Reputation 
of  the  United 
States, 
1812-1815. 


Peace  of 
Ghent,  1814. 


restriction  was  on  the  point  of  falling  to  pieces 
by  its  own  weight,  and  then  made  war  on  the 
power  which  on  the  whole  had  done  the  least 
harm.  Begun  without  preparation,  it  abounded 
in  humiliations,  crowned  by  the  capture  of  Wash- 
ington by  a  few  thousand  troops ;  and  it  ended 
with  the  occupation  by  the  enemy  of  Oregon 
and  part  of  the  coast  of  Maine.  Yet  the  War 
of  18 1 2  really  showed  the  right  of  the  United 
States  to  the  name  of  world  power;  for  the 
result  was  to  establish  three  conclusions  with 
regard  to  the  status  of  the  United  States  as 
a  military  power :  the  first  was  that  its  army 
was  very  ill  contrived  for  offensive  warfare,  on 
account  of  the  inefficiency  of  the  militia;  the 
second  was  that  the  country  could  not  success- 
fully be  penetrated  to  any  distance,  since  the 
militia,  when  behind  defences,  was  immovable, 
—  hence  the  Duke  of  Wellington  gave  it  as  his 
professional  opinion  that  it  was  not  worth  while 
to  try  invasion  from  Canada  again;  the  third 
was  that  the  navy  took  the  world  by  surprise, 
just  as  it  had  done  in  the  Revolution,  and  was 
to  do  again  in  the  Civil  War  of  1861,  and  in 
the  Spanish  War  of  1898. 

Our  naval  force  of  twenty  vessels  captured 
300  prizes,  while  the  privateers  took  1400  prizes; 
hence  a  pressure  for  peace  was  brought  to  bear 
on  the  British  government  by  shipowners,  who 
found   that  the  insurance   on  vessels  crossing 


War  of  1812  29 

from  England  to  Ireland  rose  to  thirteen  per 
cent.  In  September,  18 14,  the  Glasgow  mer- 
chants resolved  that  "the  successes  of  the 
American  privateers  have  proved  injurious  to 
our  commerce,  humbling  to  our  pride,  and  dis- 
creditable to  the  directors  of  the  naval  power  of 
the  British  nation,  whose  flag  till  of  late  waved 
over  every  sea  and  triumphed  over  every  rival." 
And  the  capture  of  five  British  men-of-war  by 
American  cruisers  of  about  equal  tonnage  so 
excited  the  pride  of  this  nation,  that  it  forgot  the 
repulses  on  the  Canadian  frontier,  the  occupation 
of  eastern  Maine,  the  capture  of  Washington, 
the  1700  American  merchantmen  made  prizes 
by  the  British,  and  the  capture  or  blockade  of 
every  ship  of  war ;  and  we  have  ever  since 
looked  upon  the  War  of  1812  as  a  period  of 
national  glory. 

The   sense  of   superiority   over  the  English 
war  force,  man  for  man  and  ship  for  ship,  was 
carried  into  the  negotiations  of  18 14.     Surely  Effective 
the  United  States  might  be  pardoned  a  feeling  Negotiations, 
of  elation  when  it  came  to  the  proceedings  of  the  ^  ^^ 
peace  commission.    The  experience  of  1782  was 
repeated.     Russia  courteously  acknowledged  the 
place  of  the  United  States  by  offering  mediation. 
As  in  1782,  Great  Britain  proposed  hard  terms 
and   gradually  withdrew  them.      John    Quincy 
Adams,  Gallatin,  Bayard,  Clay,  and  Russell  made 
an  effective  commission.     The  nation  of  eight 


30 


IVorld  Power 


8.  Latin- 
America, 
X815-1865. 


Our 
Mission. 


millions,  unable  to  keep  up  an  efifective  army, 
without  a  single  man-of-war  at  sea,  got  back 
its  territory  and  its  fisheries ;  though  it  gave 
way  on  impressments,  it  prevailed  on  every  other 
important  point  —  commerce,  the  navigation  of 
the  Mississippi,  payment  for  slaves.  It  had 
taken  forty  years  for  the  United  States  to  vin- 
dicate its  right  to  be  treated  by  England  and 
France  as  a  sister  nation,  dependent  on  neither. 
The  Peace  of  Ghent,  negotiated  in  18 14,  was 
a  public  acknowledgment  that  the  country  had 
come  to  its  majority  at  last.  Thenceforward 
no  one  has  ever  questioned  her  status  as  an 
independent  member  of  the  Association  of  World 
Powers ;  and  least  of  all  has  it  been  questioned 
by  the  mother  country,  England, 

For  half  a  century  the  world  power  of  the 
United  States  was  exercised  chiefly  in  the 
Americas.  From  181 5  to  1854  there  was  no 
general  European  war,  and  to  none  of  the  six 
European  contests  which  have  since  followed 
during  the  last  forty-five  years  has  the  United 
States  been  a  party.  In  the  modem  world  there 
is  a  division  of  labor  in  international  tasks, 
not  every  world  power  has  the  same  mission : 
Russia  is  the  arbiter  of  Northern  Asia,  and 
apparently  of  much  of  Southern  Asia ;  Holland 
finds  her  sphere  in  the  Indian  Ocean ;  Switzer- 
land maintains  rugged  democracy  in  the  midst 
of  monarchy ;  England  is  the  world's  protector 


Latin- America  31 

of  the  Open  Door ;  to  Germany  falls  the  delicate 
adjustment  of  the  conditions  of  peace  in  Europe. 
The  international  task  of  the  United  States 
during  the  forty-five  years  from  18 15  to  i860 
was  to  watch  over  the  two  Americas.  That 
task  did  not  exclude  her  from  a  share  in  the 
world's  work ;  she  assumed  it  because  it  was  for 
the  time  her  chief  political  interest. 

The  foundation  of  the  policy  of  the  United  Foundations 
States  during  the  last  three-quarters  of  a  century  o^  o""^  p°"<^ 
has   been   much   misunderstood.     It  has   been  1815-1823. ' 
chiefly  an  American  policy,  not  because  America 
was  a  sacred  precinct,  but  because  the  greatest 
benefits  to  both  Anglo-Saxon  and  Latin  Ameri- 
cans came  within  their  own   hemisphere ;   the 
United  States  kept  out  of  European  complica- 
tions,  not    because    they    were   in    themselves 
wicked,  but  because  it  made  little  difference  to 
her  which  way  they  went.     In  other  words,  the  ^ 
relations  with  Spain,  with  Cuba,  with  Mexico, 
with  South  America  and  Central  America,  came 
from  paramount  interest ;  and  as  interests  have 
altered,  our  policy   must   inevitably  alter  also. 
Here  comes  in  the  positive  effect  of  the  War  of 
1812:   it  induced  European  nations  to  believe 
that  the  United  States  would  stand  by  its  prefer- 
ences if  necessity  came. 

The  first  element  in  our  special  American 
policy  was  the  drawing  of  the  new  southern 
and  western  boundary,  a  process  in  which  Spain 


32 


IVorld  Power 


Territory 
from  Spain, 
1803-1819. 


Interest  in 
Latin- 
America, 
1815-1823. 


was  forced,  by  a  pressure  little  short  of  war,  to 
leave  us  Louisiana  and  to  cede  the  Floridas. 
On  the  other  hand,  Spain  (succeeded  by  Mexico) 
was  permitted  by  the  Treaty  of  18 19  to  hold 
Texas,  and  Cuba  was  for  many  years  practically 
guaranteed  to  Spain.  When  the  Spanish  and 
Portuguese  empires  in  America  broke  up  — 
from  1803  to  1825  —  the  United  States  saw 
arise,  without  any  interference  on  our  part,  the 
new  nations  of  Latin-America,  —  Venezuela, 
New  Granada,  the  United  Provinces  of  Rio  de 
la  Plata,  Chile,  Peru,  Mexico,  various  kaleido- 
scopic Central-American  states,  Brazil,  Paraguay, 
and  Uruguay. 

No  one  could  mistake  the  feeling  of  national 
sympathy  with  the  republics  which  fashioned 
their  state  papers  on  the  model  of  our  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  and  Constitution,  and 
which  allowed  a  trade  theretofore  forbidden. 
The  policy  of  the  administration  advanced 
steadily :  first,  simple  neutrality  in  what  was 
considered  a  civil  war  between  Spain  and  her 
daughter  colonies;  then,  beginning  in  18 16,  the 
sending  of  commissioners  to  report  on  the  con- 
dition of  the  new  Latin-American  communities ; 
then  the  despatch  of  "  commercial  agents  "  to 
care  for  American  trade;  then,  beginning  in 
1822,  the  recognition  of  the  independence 
of  our  new  neighbors,  and  the  commissioning  of 
diplomatic  representatives. 


Holy  Alliance  33 

Now  was  raised  a  vital  question  of  paramount 
interest  to  the  future  of  America,  and  the 
United  States  found  itself  opposed  to  one  of  the 
most  powerful  international  organizations  in 
history.  In  these  days  of  attempted  European 
concert,  it  may  be  well  to  recall  the  only  time  in 
this  century  when  the  affairs  of  the  world  were 
conducted  by  a  committee  of  sovereigns ;  and  to 
see  what  a  service  the  United  States  rendered 
by  remaining  a  world  power  instead  of  a  section 
of  a  world  coalition.  The  so-called  Holy  AUi-  The  Holy 
ance  of  1815,  into  which  every  European  poten-  j^j^^^' 
tate  of  consequence,  except  the  Pope  and  the 
Sultan,  entered  or  adhered,  was  in  effect  a  sys- 
tem of  mutual  political  insurance  to  prevent  the 
revolutionary  spirit  from  again  springing  up 
from  its  root.  Nothing  could  be  more  pious 
than  the  language  of  this  document :  "  The  sole 
principle  of  force  whether  between  the  said 
governments,  or  between  their  subjects,  shall  be 
that  of  doing  each  other  reciprocal  service,  and 
of  testifying  the  mutual  good  will  with  which 
they  ought  to  be  animated,  to  consider  them- 
selves all  as  members  of  one  and  the  same 
Christian  nation;  the  .  .  .  allied  princes  look- 
ing on  themselves  as  merely  delegated  by  Prov- 
idence to  govern  branches  of  the  one  family." 
John  Quincy  Adams  said  that  the  Holy  Alliance 
was  "  considered  by  this  country  as  a  mere  hypo- 
critical fraud." 


34 


PVorld  Power 


Proposed 
Intervention 
by  Europe, 
1820-1823. 


Canning  on 
the  new 
Epoch,  1823. 


Perhaps  the  Holy  Alliance  has  been  maligned  : 
it  was  almost  identical  in  spirit  with  the  present 
"  Concert  of  Powers,"  and  like  its  modern  proto- 
type had  for  its  main  object  the  preservation  of 
the  status  quo  by  the  combined  armed  force  of 
Europe. 

Even  when  the  principle  was  applied  by  the 
suppression  of  the  Neapolitan  and  Spanish  revo- 
lutions of  1820,  the  United  States  stood  observant 
but  unmoving ;  when  in  successive  Congresses 
of  1 8 18,  1820,  1 82 1,  and  1822,  agreements  were 
made  for  continuing  the  system  of  repression, 
America  had  nothing  to  say;  but  when  in  1823 
it  was  proposed  to  call  a  congress  to  consider 
how  to  recover  Spain's  American  colonies,  the 
United  States  took  alarm.  Some  suggestion 
was  made  that  the  United  States  join  in  the 
congress,  which  plan  would  have  tied  her  hands 
in  advance.^ 

George  Canning,  the  English  foreign  minister, 
asked  our  envoy.  Rush  :  "  Had  not  a  new  epoch 
arrived  in  the  relative  position  of  the  United 
States  toward  Europe,  which  Europe  must 
acknowledge  .■'  Were  the  great  political  and 
commercial  interests  which  hung  upon  the  des- 
tinies of  the  new  continent  to  be  canvassed  and 
adjusted  in  this  hemisphere  without  the  cooper- 
ation or  even  knowledge  of  the  United  States } " 
Canning  offered  to  join  the  United  States  in  a 
1  See  §  69. 


Monroe  Doctrine  35 

declaration  which  would  forever  serve  as  notice 
to  Europe  that  the  system  of  mutual  brother- 
hood did  not  apply  to  those  who  had  not  joined 
the  syndicate. 

Ten  years  had  brought  about  a  wonderful 
change  in  the  British  estimate  of  America. 
What  Canning  proposed  was  practically  a  joint 
hegemony  in  America,  a  headship  of  all  the 
other  American  powers  by  the  two  largest 
American  continental  states.  Instead,  John 
Quincy  Adams  chose  a  policy  which  Monroe 
expressed  in  his  celebrated  message  of  1823,^ —  Monroe's 
the  position  of  declaring  that  the  United  States  Doctnne, 
could  not  permit  third  parties  to  intervene  in 
America  to  subdue  infant  communities  which 
had  proved  too  strong  for  Spain. 

The  Monroe  doctrine  instantly  did  its  work  Doctrine  of 
of  impressing  upon  foreign  nations  that  inter-  N*"°"*' 
national  influence  must  be  based  on  direct 
interest,  and  not  on  a  mere  desire  to  aid  third 
parties  ;  and  the  Latin-American  countries  have 
ever  since  understood  that  in  case  of  aggression 
upon  them  by  European  powers  the  United 
States  would  help  them  out,  not  because  Monroe 
thought  that  a  good  policy,  but  because  it  is 
to  the  manifest  interest  of  the  United  States. 
From  1823  to  1845  there  was  little  to  do  in 
foreign  affairs.  It  was  a  period  of  peace  in 
Europe  and  America.     When,  by  the  annexa- 

1  See  §  69. 


36 


World  Power 


Desire  for 

Annexation, 
1845-1848. 


Clayton- 
Bulwer 
Treaty, 
1850. 


Expansion. 


tion  of  Texas  in  1845,  the  United  States  went 
forward  to  its  second  great  period  of  annexa- 
tions, it  asserted  its  privileges  and  threatened 
the  use  of  military  strength  against  the  only 
power  in  a  position  to  dispute  the  appropriation 
of  new  areas  in  North  America.  It  was  unde- 
niable that  Great  Britain  was  an  American 
power,  and  had  great  interests.  It  was  equally 
undeniable  that  the  United  States  had  all  its 
forces  on  the  ground,  and  no  distracting  inter- 
ests in  other  parts  of  the  world.  Hence,  in  all 
the  debatable  territory  England  gave  way. 
Texas  was  annexed  without  opposition  ;  Oregon 
was  divided  ;  California  was  conquered. 

When  it  came,  however,  to  a  great  commer- 
cial question,  that  of  an  isthmus  canal,  England 
and  the  United  States,  the  two  powers  which 
then  had  the  largest  carrying  trade,  came  to  an 
agreement  in  the  Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  of 
1850,  by  which  they  jointly  guaranteed  the 
neutrality  of  the  canal.  Thus  the  United 
States  at  the  same  time  asserted  its  own  place 
as  a  world  power,  and  admitted  the  existing 
status  of  England  as  an  American  power. 

During  the  fifties  the  United  States  was 
repeatedly  reminded  that  power  brings  with  it  a 
moral  responsibility.  When  it  stretched  forth 
its  hand  to  take  Cuba  or  Central  America,  its 
own  people  bade  the  government  forbear  exten- 
sion of  slave  territory  at  the  expense  of  feeble 


Mexico  37 

neighbors.  Even  the  profligate  administration 
of  Buchanan  could  not  be  wholly  a  law  unto 
itself. 

During  the  invasion  of  Mexico  by  the  French,  invasion  of 
from  i860  to  1867,  the  limits  of  the  policy  of  ^^jg^j, 
the  United  States  in  America  were  plainly  seen. 
The  so-called  war  was  really  a  foray  inspired  by 
France,  in  which  the  United  States  refused  to 
join,  and  from  which  England  and  Spain  shortly 
withdrew.  The  United  States  repeatedly  pro- 
tested against  the  French  occupation,  never  on 
the  ground  of  the  Monroe  doctrine,  always 
on  the  ground  of  material  and  moral  interest. 
Remonstrance  failing,  at  the  end  of  the  Civil 
War  the  government  threatened  force  against 
what  was  supposed  to  be  the  strongest  military 
power  in  the  world,  and  Napoleon  III  grudg- 
ingly withdrew.  Whereupon  the  United  States 
left  the  Mexicans  to  reorganize  their  government 
as  they  might  choose,  and  has  never  protested 
against  the  creation  of  the  present  Mexican 
native  monarchy,  disguised  under  the  forms  of 
a  republican  federation. 

While  pursuing  a  policy  of  leadership  rather  9.  Pacific 
than    of   domination   in   America,   the   United  ^^}^^  „ 

'  East,  1785- 

States  has  for  a  century  extended  an  influence  1865. 
westward  to  Asia.     Four  obstacles  cut  off  the 
English  colonies  in  America  from  the  golden 
East:  English  control  of  the  East  India  trade 
to  America ;  the  vast  distance ;  prohibitions  of 


38 


World  Power 


Opening  of 
Asiatic 
Trade, 
1785-1844. 


Hawaii. 


trade  by  Asiatic  powers ;  and  exclusion  of  Eng- 
lish vessels  from  Dutch,  Spanish,  and  Portu- 
guese colonies  in  the  Indian  Ocean.  The 
Revolution  set  the  Eastern  trade  free.  In  1785 
the  ship  Empress  of  New  York  came  home 
to  enrich  the  owners  with  the  profits  of  the  first 
direct  voyage  to  China :  a  trade  in  ginseng 
and  furs  was  begun,  which  even  Chinese  stern- 
ness could  not  repel.  Indeed,  the  settlement 
at  Astoria,  which  proved  to  be  one  of  the  most 
significant  links  in  our  title  to  Oregon,  was  due 
to  the  establishment  of  the  fur  trade  there  in 
order  to  supply  the  Chinese  markets.  From 
that  time  on  there  was  a  profitable  direct  trade 
to  India,  China,  Arabia,  Persia,  and  the  coast  of 
Africa;  and  shipowners  like  "King  Hooper" 
of  Marblehead  built  them  observatories  to  watch 
for  their  Indiamen  coming  home.  No  Asiatic 
colonies  were  formed  by  the  United  States; 
but  commercial  houses  were  founded  in  Eastern 
ports,  and  smart  young  Yankee  supercargoes 
and  ship-captains  made  fortunes  for  their  own- 
ers and  something  for  themselves.  Our  vessels 
shared  the  scanty  privileges  of  Asiatic  ports,  and 
took  the  international  risk  of  pirates. 

During  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury the  Americans  made  one  settlement  —  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  —  which  perhaps  may  prove 
to  be  the  beginning  of  a  Pacific  empire;  and 
thereby  involved   our  country   in  the  interna- 


The  Far  East  39 

tional  squabbles  and  responsibilities  of  the 
Pacific.  In  185 1  a  great  effort  was  made  to 
annex  the  islands,  the  native  rulers  consenting, 
or  rather  insisting.  The  United  States  refused 
annexation,  but  promised  protection.  The 
islands  remained  virtually  a  kind  of  dependency 
down  to  the  annexation  in  1898. 

To  reach  the  ports  of  Asia  was  one  thing; 
to  sell  our  exports  there  was  another.  The 
trade  of  China  and  Japan  had  been  the  quest  of 
travellers  and  merchants  from  Marco  Polo 
down,  —  Cipango  and  Cathay  were  words  which 
Columbus  rolled  under  his  tongue  like  a  sweet 
morsel,  —  and  later  ambassadors  of  Russia,  Hol- 
land, and  England  kotowed  and  grovelled  before 
the  Son  of  Heaven,  or  his  representative,  and 
asked  trade  of  his  empire.  The  Chinese  nut 
was  cracked  by  Great  Britain  in  a  rough  fash- 
ion, without  any  of  the  fierce  international 
diplomatic  contests  which  mark  the  present 
stages  of  the  Chinese  question.  The  Chinese 
refused  to  buy  English  goods  or  smoke  Eng- 
lish opium,  whereupon  the  English  smashed  in 
the  gates  of  China,  and  compelled  the  opening 
of  certain  "treaty  ports."  Without  being  a 
party  to  this  short  method  of  negotiating  com- 
mercial treaties,  the  United  States  profited  by 
it;  and  in  1844  Caleb  Cushing  was  sent  as  our  Chinese 
first  diplomatic  representative  to  China,  and  Treaty,  1844, 
obtained  a  favorable  treaty. 


40  World  Power 

The  next  fifteen  years  was  the  happy  time 
for  American  shipping.  The  stars  and  stripes 
were  seen  on  every  sea,  and  by  and  by  they 
Japanese  appeared  in  the  harbor  of  Nagasaki,  Japan, 
Treaty,  1854.  y^^ere,  in  1854,  Commodore  Perry  secured  a 
commercial  treaty,  by  much  the  same  diplomacy 
as  that  of  England  in  China.  The  United 
States  was  the  first  of  the  nineteenth-century 
powers  to  open  up  Japan,  and  she  has  always 
been  proud  of  having  introduced  Western  civili- 
zation to  the  most  hopeful  of  Asiatic  nations. 

The  fifties  and  sixties  were  not  favorable 
decades  for  planting  American  colonies,  and 
the  Asiatic  trade  for  which  such  efforts  had 
been  made  lost  much  of  its  importance.  Down 
to  1880,  therefore,  the  United  States  made  no 
advances  in  the  Pacific,  and  up  to  the  occupa- 
tion of  the  Philippines  in  1898  looked  on  as  a 
spectator  at  the  contests,  treaties,  and  combina- 
tions of  European  powers  in  the  East. 
10.  European       Having  been  at  war  with  no  European  nation 

Relations,      between  181 5  and  1898,  and  having  no  interest 
1815-1865.      ,  ^         .  .      .         ^  .       . 

m  European  territory,  the  mternational  ques- 
tions which  have  arisen  chiefly  concern  com- 
merce and  the  status  of  individuals.  From  18 15 
to  1835  the  United  States  stood  for  a  steady 
principle  —  that  of  getting  rid  of  the  remains 
of  the  navigation  acts  of  European  countries. 
These  commercial  discriminations  were  finally 
renounced  in  a  series  of  commercial   treaties. 


Europe  41 

During  this  period  the  United  States  never  had 

what  would  now  be  considered  a  high  protective 

tariff,  and  in  1854  it  made  a  reciprocity  treaty 

with  Canada.     The  tendency  after  1840  was  to 

go  into  the  system  of  free  trade,  which  then 

seemed  Ukely  to  prevail  all  over  the  Western 

world. 

In  only  two  cases  the  government  showed  a 

disposition  to  push  American  principles  upon 

Europe.     When,  in  1841,  the  five  great  Euro-  Quintuple 

pean  powers  united  in  a  treaty  for  the  regula-  ^"^^^X"  ^^'• 

tion  of  the  slave  trade,  our  minister  in  Paris, 

Lewis  Cass,  took  the  responsibility  of  a  public 

protest,  on  the  ground  that  the  object  of  the 

treaty  was  to  show  his  government  in  a  bad 

light.     In   1848,  the  revolution  year,  Hungary   Hungarian, 

revolted  from  Austria,  and  President  Polk  went  R/^'oiutio". 
'  1848. 

so  far  as  to  send  a  special  commissioner  to  see 
whether  there  was  ground  for  recognition  of 
the  seceders  ;  the  act  gave  great  offence  to  Aus- 
tria ;  and  in  1850,  in  a  correspondence  with  Huisemann, 
Baron  Huisemann,  Austrian  representative,  ''^5°' 
Daniel  Webster  let  the  eagle  scream.  Shortly 
after  this  Kossuth,  the  Hungarian  exile,  came 
over,  was  received  in  state  by  both  Houses  of 
Congress,  and  it  really  looked  for  a  time  as 
though  the  United  States  meant  to  stand  before 
the  world  as  a  proselyting  power. 

In  the  fifties  arose  several  international  ques- 
tions in  which  the  United  States  took  a  decided 


42 


World  Power 


Sound  Dues, 
1857. 


Crimean 

Neutrality, 

1854. 


Congress  of 
Powers,  1856. 


stand  as  one  of  the  sisterhood  of  powers.  Ever 
since  the  Middle  Ages  the  Danish  government 
had  levied  duties  on  vessels  passing  through 
the  straits  into  the  Baltic;  the  only  logical 
ground  was  that  of  defence  from  pirates,  and 
for  many  decades  that  ground  had  disappeared. 
The  United  States  therefore  took  the  lead  in 
protesting;  European  powers  then  took  the 
matter  up,  and  in  1857  held  a  kind  of  congress, 
and  made  a  joint  agreement  to  compound  the 
duties  by  paying  a  lump  sum,  of  which  $900,000 
was  assigned  to  the  United  States.  Our  gov- 
ernment refused  to  share  in  the  congress  or  its 
findings,  and  made  a  separate  settlement  with 
the  Danes.  In  effect,  the  American  republic 
was  standing  for  the  principle  of  free  naviga- 
tion of  the  open  seas  in  behalf  of  all  nations. 

Out  of  the  Crimean  War  two  questions  came 
up  indirectly  in  which  the  United  States 
asserted  its  international  dignity.  The  first 
was  a  breach  of  neutrality  :  the  British  minister 
was  supposed  to  have  connived  at  the  enlist- 
ment of  men  in  this  country,  and  was  therefore 
dismissed  by  the  administration  of  Pierce.  At 
the  end  of  the  war,  in  1856,  again  the  United 
States  refused  to  join  in  or  to  accept  the  results 
of  a  European  congress.  The  great  European 
powers,  as  a  part  of  the  settlement  at  the  end 
of  the  Crimean  War,  agreed  to  abolish  privateer- 
ing;  but  the  United  States,  though   specially 


Civil  War  43 

invited  to  accede,  refused  on  rather  technical 
grounds. 

So  far,  since  the  end  of  the  War  of  1812,  the 
United  States  had  taken  part  only  in  such  inter- 
national questions  as  it  chose  to  touch ;  by  the 
Civil  War  diplomacy  was  thrust  upon  us.  Not-  Diplomacy  of 
withstanding  the  inexperience  of  the  govern-  waf'isei- 
ment  in  such  questions  as  belligerency,  blockade,  1865. 
neutral  rights,  and  contraband,  the  old  principle 
of  "hands  off"  for  neutrals  was  successfully 
applied.  Somehow  Lincoln's  administration 
worried  through  the  ticklish  difficulty  of  treat- 
ing the  Confederate  States  as  simple  insurgents 
and  hence  not  entitled  to  an  international  status, 
and  yet  holding  foreign  nations  responsible  for 
the  limitations  imposed  on  neutrals  in  a  regular 
war.  It  was  not  possible  to  prevent  the  recog- 
nition of  the  belligerency  of  the  Confederacy, — 
indeed  our  own  government  practically  recog- 
nized it, —  but  it  was  possible  to  do  the  world 
several  services  by  insisting  that  independence 
should  not  be  recognized  before  independence 
was  assured,  and  by  protesting  against  the 
building  of  war  ships  for  the  enemy  in  neutral 
ports.  Charles  Francis  Adams's  persistent, 
"  Your  Lordship  will  observ-e  that  this  is  war," 
put  the  principle  in  a  nutshell.  In  military 
operations,  but  especially  in  the  blockade,  the 
United  States  showed  the  physical  force  of  a 
world    power :     with    an    improvised    navy  to 


44 


IVorld  Power 


Doubtful 

Precedents, 

1861-1865. 


II.  West 
Indies,  East 
ladies,  and 
Asia,  1870- 
1900. 


shut  up  three  thousand  miles  of  seacoast,  so 
that  at  last  scarce  a  port  was  open,  was  the 
work  of  a  great  naval  power. 

On  some  points  the  United  States  put  for- 
ward claims  during  this  period  which  were  not 
justified  by  international  law,  and  which  were 
even  contrary  to  the  long-established  policy  of 
the  nation.  The  Confederate  envoys  taken  in 
the  Trent  were  released  on  a  technicality  —  but 
really  because,  as  Lincoln  put  it,  "  we  must  stick 
to  American  principles  concerning  the  rights 
of  neutrals."  The  seizure  of  vessels  bound  to 
Mexican  ports  on  the  ground  that  the  cargoes 
were  destined  eventually  for  the  Confederacy  — 
the  so-called  "  continuous  voyages  "  —  set  up  a 
dangerous  principle,  which  may  yet  return  to 
plague  the  United  States.  The  real  lesson  for 
the  world  from  the  Civil  War  was  the  strength, 
vitality,  and  power  of  self-preservation  of  the 
republic.  So  long  as  slavery  divided  the  nation 
it  could  neither  perform  its  own  tasks  nor  take 
its  rightful  place  among  nations.  Having  cast 
the  beam  out  of  its  own  eye,  it  might  see  clearly 
the  mote  that  was  in  a  brother's  eye. 

When  people  speak  or  write  of  the  present 
trend  of  our  foreign  relations  as  a  party  ma- 
noeuvre, or  a  fit  of  national  dementia,  they  turn 
their  backs  on  the  history  of  the  century,  and 
especially  on  the  events  of  the  last  thirty  years. 
Whether  welcome  or  unwelcome,  it  is  a  truth 


The  Far  East  45 

as  well  verified  as  the  celebration  of  the  Fourth 
of  July,  that  the  United  States  has  for  years 
been  in  the  habit  of  mixing  in  world  politics 
whenever  it  felt  that  its  interests  were  involved. 

With  Europe  there  have  been  few  opportuni- 
ties for  American  influence  during  the  last  thirty 
years.     Disputes  and  treaties  over  the  naturali- 
zation of  immigrants,  and  over  tariffs ;  interna- 
tional agreements  as  to  the  rights  of  the  road  at 
sea,  postal  service,  and  telegraphs, —  these  have 
been  the  principle  subjects  of  diplomacy;  and 
in  such   subjects   Costa  Rica  and  Ecuador  are 
admitted  on  equal  terms  with  ourselves.     We 
refused  in   1885  to  be  bound  by  the  European 
conference  on  the  Congo  Free  State,  and  have  Congo  Free 
reluctantly  kept    out    of    the    settlement  —  or  ^*^'^ 
rather  the  neglect  —  of  the  crisis  in  the  Otto-  Turkey, 
man  Empire.     But  in  the  Chinese  imbroglio  of 
1900  the  United  States  has  set  an  example  both  China. 
of  readiness  to  defend  her  colonies,  and  of  un- 
willingness to  seize  territory. 

In  American  questions  the  consciousness  of  a 
special  international  function  has  shown  itself  a 
dozen  times  since  1 867.     The  first  evidence  was  schemes  of 

the  scheme  of  annexation  in  the  West  Indies,  Annexation. 

'  1 867- 1 872, 
put  forward  in  1 867-1 869.  In  these  plans,  how- 
ever, the  American  people  took  so  little  interest 
that  St.  Thomas  and  San  Domingo  were  allowed 
to  slip  away,  although  both  islands  were  eager 
to  come  into  the  Union.     Alaska  was  annexed. 


46  IVorld  Power 

and  though  long  neglected,  it  proved  to  be  a 
centre  of  international  complications :  stretch- 
ing far  toward  the  mainland  of  Asia,  it  makes 
us  parties  to  all  North  Pacific  quarrels ;  and  the 
seal  fishery  proved  so  valuable  as  to  lead  to  a 
claim  of  control  over  seals  in  the  high  seas, 
which  involved  us  in  negotiations  with  Russia, 
Japan,  and  England,  and,  after  threatening  war 
with  Great  Britain,  resulted  in  the  Paris  com- 
mission of  1895  to  arbitrate  the  question  of  seal- 
catching  in  the  open  sea. 

The  Cuban  War  of  1868  to  1878  compelled  the 
United  States  to  assert  its  position  as  a  world 
power    toward    Spain,    and    caused    President 
Cuban  Inter-  Grant,  in   1873,  to  make  the  novel  proposition 
vention,  1873.  ^^  joint   intervention    with    European   powers. 
In  the  Chilean- Peruvian  War  of  1 877-1 881,  the 
United  States  at  first  took  the  attitude  of  an 
Arbiter  in       arbiter  of  the  terms  of  peace,  but  fortunately 
Arnerica.        withdrew  from  a  position  which,  if  rigidly  main- 
1881.  tained,  would  have  made  it  necessary  to  police 

all  Latin-America;  and  in  the  Pan-American 
Congress  of  1889  the  attempt  was  made  to 
secure  a  kind  of  American  concert.  Complica- 
Chiie,  1890.  tions  with  Chile  in  1 890  left  that  country  feel- 
ing sore ;  and  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any 
Latin-American  power  which  would  for  a  mo- 
ment admit  that  its  action  could  be  coerced  by 
us,  although  they  are  all  glad  to  have  the 
United  States  push  back  their  adversaries. 


Venezuela  47 

The  most  significant  incident  of  the  period  is 
the  controversy  over  Venezuela.  The  issue  Venezuela, 
was  a  prolonged  boundary  controversy  between  ^^^5- 
Venezuela  and  the  British  colony  of  Guiana, 
of  which  nobody  will  ever  know  the  merits; 
for  the  American  commission  made  no  find- 
ing, and  the  arbitration  of  1899  does  not  set 
forth  the  ground  of  the  decision :  but  we  do 
know  that  the  object  of  dispute  is  of  no  great 
value ;  the  territory  is  low  and  poisonous ;  the 
Europeans  who  live  on  it  are  but  a  few  hun- 
dred ;  and  it  is  almost  as  distant  from  New 
Orleans  as  Liverpool  from  Newfoundland. 

Whatever  the  distance,  in  December,  1895, 
President  Cleveland  threatened  war  on  Great 
Britain  unless  the  question  were  forthwith  sub- 
mitted to  arbitration.  Secretary  Olney's  pub- 
lished argument  was  to  the  effect  that  the 
Monroe  doctrine  forbade  the  seizing  of  disputed 
territory  ;  that  the  United  States  was  paramount 
in  America ;  and  that  foreign  colonies  ought  to 
cease  in  this  hemisphere.  Measured  by  the  test 
of  national  interest,  the  interposition  of  the 
United  States  was  unreal,  and  the  published 
motives  insufficient.  Though  Great  Britain  con- 
ceded the  arbitration,  no  national  policy  of  ours 
can  ignore  the  fact  that  by  the  possession  of 
the  Dominion  of  Canada  and  Newfoundland, 
of  West  India  Islands,  of  Belize  and  Guiana, 
Great  Britain  is  also  an  American  power,  and 


48  World  Power 

can  be  dispossessed  of  her  territory  or  her  in- 
terests only  by  war,^ 
The  latest  phase  of  our  influence  in  America 

Cuban  War.  is  familiar  to  everybody.     In  1898,  moved  partly 

^898.  ]jy  humanity,  but  more  by  manifest  national  in- 

terest, the  United  States  compelled  Spain  by 
force  of  arms  to  leave  Cuba  to  the  Cubans,  and 
to  cede  Porto  Rico  outright ;  and  nothing  can 
be  more  certain  than  that  we  shall  henceforth 
insist  on  a  naval  supremacy  in  the  West  Indies, 
and  that  Cuba  will  remain  substantially  an 
American  protectorate. 

America  in  In  the  Pacific  and  the  East,  as  in  the  West, 

*  *•  intervention  and  conquest  are  only  a  larger 
development  of  an  old-time  policy,  by  which,  in 
the  face  of  bitter  opposition  at  home,  there  has 
been  a  steady  expansion  of  interests,  and  conse- 
quently of  new  reasons  for  exercising  the  power 

China,  1881-  of  the  country.     Toward  China,  from   1881  to 

*^^*  1899,  we  assumed  the  contemptuous  attitude  of 

other  Western  powers  —  sweeping  treaties  aside 
when  we  did  not  like  them,  and  cutting  off  immi- 

japan.  gration.     Toward  Japan  we  have  felt  a  benevo- 

lent friendship,  till  we  thought  there  was  a  con- 

Samoa.  flict  of  interests  over  Hawaii.     In   Samoa  we 

have  had  one  of  our  few  experiences  of  concerted 
diplomacy.  If  to  be  coregent  of  seventeen  hun- 
dred square  miles  of  Pacific  island  with  England 
and  Germany  makes  a  world  power,  we  had  that 

»  See  §§  70,  74. 


Review  49 

dignity;  and  that  is  all  that  we  got  out  of  the 
tripartite  arrangement.  The  sole  possession  of 
Tutuila  with  its  harbor  of  Pango  Pango,  and  of  Hawaii. 
Hawaii,  makes  us  necessarily  interested  in  all 
Pacific  questions ;  while  the  possession  of  Manila  PhUippines. 
leads  us  into  the  thick  of  the  Eastern  Asiatic 
contest,  and  thus  must  inevitably  bring  us  into 
new  complications  with  the  great  powers  of 
Europe. 

Reviewing  the  history  of  American  foreign  12.  Review 
relations,  it  seems  clear  that  the  United  States  po^er  * 
has  from  its  birth  been  in  both  hemispheres  a 
true  world  power  —  in  mihtary  strength,  in  in- 
fluence on  other  nations,  in  a  tendency  to  extend 
its  influence  and  power.  It  is  this  status  which 
has  given  such  success  in  negotiating  treaties 
and  in  settling  disputes  ;  but  the  government 
has  regularly  chosen  its  own  occasions  and  its 
own  methods  of  interference.  The  power  of  the 
United  States  has  usually  been  in  reserve,  but 
not  in  isolation;  and  whenever  the  interests  of 
the  nation  seemed  sufficiently  affected,  our  place 
has  been  made  manifest.  The  method  has  al- 
most always  been  that  of  separate,  independent 
remonstrance.  Though  invited  to  take  part  in 
European  congresses,  or  to  join  in  their  action 
in  the  English  negotiations  and  also  in  the  Dutch 
negotiations  of  1782,  in  Spanish  affairs  in  1823, 
in  the  Quintuple  Treaty  of  1843,  in  the  Declara- 
tion of  Paris  in  1856,  and  in  the  African  congress 


50 


JVorld  Power 


Cause  of 
Spirit  of 
Expansion. 


Home 
Problems. 


of  1885,  the  government  has  always  refused ;  the 
only  case  of  joint  conference  on  vital  matters 
previous  to  1900  was  that  of  1889  on  Samoa. 

The  disposition  of  the  nation  to  play  a  great 
part  in  the  world's  affairs  is  not,  as  many  people 
seem  to  think,  simply  the  work  of  presidents  or 
consuls  or  congressmen;  it  is  the  natural  ten- 
dency of  a  people  which  has  a  facility  for  for- 
getting the  early  defeats  and  humiliations  of  its 
history,  and  which  feels  like  proving  its  own 
vast  power.  To  moralize  upon  such  a  tendency 
is  not  the  purpose  of  this  discussion.  The 
United  States  has  heretofore  found  little  occasion 
to  assert  its  dignity  as  a  world  power :  our 
strength  is  unquestioned  —  and  where,  as  in  the 
Samoan  and  Venezuelan  question,  the  nation 
appeared  to  have  a  strong  interest,  no  other 
power  has  been  willing  to  stand  in  the  way. 

When  we  consider  our  own  unsettled  home 
problems  we  are  dismayed  at  taking  a  share  in 
the  conduct  of  the  world's  affairs.  With  irre- 
sponsible despotisms  in  many  of  our  great  cities 
and  some  great  states ;  with  an  ever  present  race 
antagonism  of  our  own  making;  with  millions 
of  people  in  the  Southern  mountains  and  the 
remote  mining  camps  of  the  Klondike,  and  of 
nearer  regions,  who  are  as  far  from  real  modern 
civilization  as  the  Filipinos ;  with  mediaeval  mob 
laws  and  torture  of  prisoners,  —  one  would  think 
that  we  had  plenty  of  space  for  the  national 


Review  51 

energy  within  our  own  boundaries.  Why  go  far 
afield  to  form  new  colonial  relations  such  as 
must  increase  the  points  of  friction  and  involve 
us  in  other  people's  quarrels?  Why  spend  on 
Cuba  and  Porto  Rico,  Guam,  and  the  Philip- 
pines, men,  money,  and  vital  energy,  which  must 
be  withdrawn  from  the  pressing  needs  of  our 
own  communities  ?  New  tropical  colonies  mean 
large  expenditures  of  every  kind,  and  —  judging 
by  the  experience  of  other  nations  —  they  will 
bring  small  annual  returns  and  much  vexation  of 
spirit. 

If  this  book  accurately  states  the  history  of 
our  external  policy,  it  will  be  seen  that  annexa-  The 
tions,  interventions,  colonies,  and  international  >°«"^bi*' 
influence  are  not  new  factors  in  our  national  life. 
The  drift  of  a  century  has  suddenly  proved  to 
be  a  current.  The  proximity  of  Spanish  and 
Latin-American  lands,  and  especially  of  Cuba, 
has  long  since  made  a  quiet,  self-contained  na- 
tional life  impossible.  The  advance  into  the 
West  Indies  is  as  inevitable  as  it  was  into  Texas 
and  California.  For  fifty  years  there  has  been 
also  a  tendency  to  establish  national  power  in 
the  Pacific.  We  cannot  avoid  direct  relations 
with  European  powers ;  such  relations  spring 
out  of  our  nearness  to  Europe,  measured  by  time 
and  difficulty,  out  of  the  growth  of  international 
trade,  the  movement  of  emigrants,  the  interplay 
of  literature  and  of  institutions. 


52  World  Power 

If  it  be  urged  that  in  international  councils 
even  great  powers  sometimes  play  only  second 
fiddle,  the  only  answer  must  be  that  it  is  the 
privilege  and  glory  of  a  great  democracy  to  make 
its  own  choices  —  even  its  own  mistakes.  Who 
can  doubt  that  the  purpose  of  the  American 
people  is  not  only  to  make  the  nation  felt  as  a 
Spirit  of  world  power,  but  also  to  spread  Western  civiliza- 
Civiiization.  ^-jq^  eastward  ?  Perhaps  we  have  yet  to  learn 
the  unyielding  inertia  of  the  East ;  doubtless  we 
have  some  disillusionments  before  us.  The 
diplomacy  of  the  United  States  has  not  been  a 
series  of  triumphs,  it  has  included  many  errors 
and  some  injustices;  but  now  that  slavery  has 
ceased  to  poison  our  foreign  policy,  the  general 
tendency  of  American  expansion  is  toward  human 
freedom.  May  the  American  nation  be  like 
Thomas  Hooker,  founder  of  Connecticut,  of 
whom  a  contemporary  said,  "  He  had  a  temper 
like  a  mastiff  dog  with  a  chain  —  he  could  let 
out  his  dog,  and  he  could  draw  in  his  dog  !  " 


II 

THE   EXPERIENCE    OF  THE    UNITED 

STATES    IN    FOREIGN    MILITARY 

EXPEDITIONS 

In  1898  three  expeditions  of  United  States  13.  Analysis 
military  and  naval  forces  were  directed  to  Expeditions 
different  colonial  possessions  of  Spain.  Such 
movements,  however  justified  by  national  in- 
terest, seem  at  first  sight  abnormal :  that  a 
peaceful  Christian  nation  should  despatch  fleets, 
seize  islands,  send  troops,  subvert  long-estab- 
lished colonial  governments,  and  distribute 
dynamite  shells  among  malcontents,  —  all  this 
seems  to  many  minds  to  have  been  an  aggres- 
sive departure  from  our  national  policy. 

We  Americans  live  so  fast  that  we  run  away  Precedents, 
from  our  own  history ;  we  send  men,  ships,  and 
guns  to  the  Caribbean  Sea,  the  Atlantic,  the  Pa- 
cific, and  the  Indian  Ocean,  without  stopping  to 
consider  whether  this  is  the  first  or  the  twentieth 
time  we  have  organized  such  expeditions.  Yet 
the  history  of  the  United  States  abounds  in  prec- 
edents of  armed  interventions  and  occupations, 
from  which  we  may  learn  something  of  the 
occasions  for  such  warfare,  of  the  difficulties  of 
53 


54        Military  Expeditions 

the  process,  and  of  the  method  of  administering 
foreign  territory  after  it  has  been  seized.  So 
far  from  the  expeditions  of  1898  being  abnormal, 
an  examination  of  the  diplomatic  and  military 
records  of  the  United  States  shows  more  than 
sixty  previous  instances  of  actual  or  authorized 
use  of  force  outside  our  national  jurisdiction ; 
in  about  forty  of  these,  military  or  naval  force 
has  been  used  or  displayed ;  about  thirty  times 
there  has  been  an  occupation  of  territory,  longer 
or  shorter ;  in  a  dozen  cases  some  of  the  terri- 
tory thus  affected  has  been  eventually  annexed 
to  the  United  States. 
Limitations.  In  fact,  the  difficulty  in  treating  the  subject 
of  military  expeditions  is  not  to  find  instances, 
but  to  exclude  mere  suggestions  and  threats,  so 
as  to  consider  only  those  cases  in  which  the 
responsibility  of  using  force  outside  our  own 
territory  has  been  distinctly  assumed  by  some 
public  authority.  No  attempt  will  be  made  to 
discuss  private  filibustering  expeditions,  or  the 
use  of  force  within  our  boundaries,  whether 
against  Indians  or  insurgents  or  organized  re- 
bellion. We  shall  not  go  beyond  the  temporary 
military  administrations  set  up  in  conquered 
regions  till  the  will  of  the  home  government 
could  be  ascertained.  The  important  question 
of  the  permanent  colonial  governments  estab- 
lished by  the  United  States  in  annexed  territory 
will  be  reserved  for  a  later  chapter. 


Analysis  55 

With  these  limitations,  the  story  of  the  armed 
interventions  of  a  century  and  a  quarter  may 
be  conveniently  considered  in  seven  periods : 
(i)  Military  expeditions  and  occupations  in 
the  Revolutionary  and  Barbary  wars,  1775- 
181 5.  (2)  Expeditions  and  occupations  for 
territorial  expansion,  1 797-1 821.  (3)  Relations 
with  European  countries,  1822- 183 5.  (4)  Ag- 
gressive expeditions,  1836-1850.  (5)  Expedi- 
tions become  a  policy,  1850- 1860.  (6)  Relations 
with  American  neighbors,  1 861-1872.  (7)  Com- 
mercial and  philanthropic  interventions  and  ex- 
peditions, 1 873- 1 898. 

We  are  accustomed  to  think  of  the  war  of  the  14-  Revoia- 
Revolution  only  as  a  defensive  struggle.     Our  g^^^*"*^ 
forefathers   did   not   so   regard  it ;    for   before  Expeditions, 
Boston  Harbor  was  cleared  of  the  invader  they  ^'^^'^  ^5- 
had  sent  a  double  expedition  to  seize  Canada, 
and  later  made  three  other  invasions  of  enemies' 
territory.     In  June,  1775,  Montgomery  was  or-  Canada. 
dered  to   advance  into  Canada  via  the   Lake  ^^^^' 
Champlain   route;    in   September  Arnold  was 
sent  across  the  wilderness  from   the  coast   of 
Maine.      The   Americans   took   Montreal,   and 
the  whble  open  country  was  at  their  mercy ;  but 
a  united  attack  on  Quebec  failed  in  December, 
1775,  and  Montgomery  was  killed  in  the  as.sault. 
Notwithstanding  the   capture   of   every  strong 
place  in  Canada  except  Quebec,  and  the  occupa- 
tion of  the  country  for  ten  months,  the  Ameri- 


56        Military  Expeditions 

can   army   retired   in   July,    1776,   with   heavy 
losses. 

Some  of  Washington's  instructions  to  Benedict 
Arnold  as  commander  of  the  forces  directed 
against  Quebec  might  serve  a  Dewey  or  a 
Wood  :  "  You  are  to  endeavor  to  discover  the 
real  sentiment  of  the  Canadians  toward  our 
cause.  .  .  .  You  are  to  conciliate  the  affec- 
tions of  these  people  and  such  Indians  as  you 
may  meet  with.  .  .  .  Check  any  attempt  to 
plunder.  .  .  .  Spare  neither  pains  nor  expense 
to  gain  all  possible  intelligence.  .  .  .  You  are 
to  protect  and  support  the  free  exercise  of  the 
religion  of  the  country."  The  Continental  Con- 
gress gave  orders  to  establish  "  Associations,"  to 
form  a  "  Provincial  Assembly,"  and  to  choose 
"  Delegates  to  Congress." 

It  was  otherwise  in  the  second  foreign  expedi- 
Northwest.  tion  of  the  Revolutionary  War  —  George  Rogers 
1778-1779-  Clark's  invasion  of  the  Northwest.  With  a  force 
of  about  two  hundred  men  he  descended  the  Ohio 
in  1778,  and  took  the  little  posts  of  Kaskaskia 
and  Cahokia.  He  then  enrolled  many  of  the 
French  Canadian  inhabitants  into  his  little  army, 
and  took  their  oath  of  allegiance,  prbmising 
them  "  all  the  privileges  of  the  American  gov- 
ernment." With  some  of  these  men  he  ap- 
peared before  the  fortifications  of  Vincennes, 
in  February,  1779.  When  the  British  com- 
mander,  Hamilton,  attempted   to  make  terms. 


Revolution  57 

Clark  firmly  replied,  "  I  am,  sir,  well  acquainted 
with  your  strength  and  force,  and  am  able  to 
take  your  fort ;  therefore  I  will  give  no  other 
terms  but  to  submit  yourself  and  garrison  to  my 
discretion  and  mercy."  Surely  the  bold  Ameri- 
can adventurer  must  have  had  in  mind  the  gal- 
lant corporal  in  the  opera  who  bids  off  the  castle 
at  auction,  and  when  asked  how  he  expects  to 
find  the  money,  answers,  "  I  will  save  it  out  of 
my  pay."  Clark  took  Hamilton  prisoner,  con- 
fiscated and  sold  some  of  his  slaves,  and  held 
for  Virginia  the  whole  vast  region  between  the 
lakes,  the  Ohio,  and  the  Mississippi.* 

A  third  expedition  was  Sullivan's  invasion  of  Indian 
the  country  of  the  hostile  Six  Nations  in  1779.  <^°""^''y' 
He  penetrated  up  the  Susquehanna  —  the  town 
of  Horseheads  long  marked  the  spot  where 
his  cavalry  was  dismounted  —  and  harried  the 
Genesee  Valley ;  but  as  soon  as  he  retired,  the 
Indians  again  closed  in  upon  the  region,  and 
nullified  his  military  success. 

A  fourth  instance  of  armed  invasion,  and  the 
only   case   of   a   landing    of    American   forces 
within  the  United    Kingdom,   was   the   daring  British 
attack  of  John  Paul  Jones  on  Whitehaven  and  J'^'^g"'^' 
St.  Mary's  Island  in  April,  1778.    The  principal 
result  was  the  "  lifting  "  of  the  Earl  of  Selkirk's 
plate,  which  Jones  afterward  gallantly  bought 
in  and  returned  to  Lady  Selkirk. 
1  See  $  58. 


58        Military  Expeditions 


Barbary 

States, 
1801-1804. 


Morocco, 
1803. 


From  this  time  for  nearly  twenty  years  there 
was  no  foreign  military  expedition,  though  some 
preparations  were  made  in  the  French  war  of 
1798;  but  from  1801  to  1804  American  ships 
repeatedly  bombarded  Tripolitan  towns,  and 
even  raised  the  American  flag  over  a  foreign 
city.  At  first  the  peace-loving  mind  of  Presi- 
dent Jefferson  could  not  comprehend  a  war 
where  people  shot  at  each  other ;  and  when  the 
Enterprise  in  1801  captured  an  enemy's  vessel, 
the  craft  was  simply  turned  over  to  its  owners 
again. 

More  vigorous  treatment  speedily  brought 
Morocco  to  terms,  so  that  in  1803  the  titular 
Emperor  of  that  country  warned  his  subjects  as 
follows :  "  Now  know  ye,  that  the  Almighty 
having  reconciled  what  had  happened  with  the 
American  nation  because  of  the  acts  of  the  ves- 
sels, and  that  we  are  now,  as  we  were  before,  with 
them  in  peace  and  friendship,  as  settled  with 
our  father  (to  whom  God  be  merciful !) —  Take 
care  —  take  care  that  none  of  you  do  anything 
against  them,  or  show  them  any  disrespect  or 
disregard,  for  they  are,  as  they  were,  in  friend- 
ship and  in  peace,  and  we  have  increased  our 
regard  for  them,  in  consequence  of  the  friend- 
ship they  have  manifested  to  our  person,  which 
God  has  exalted.  And  we  order  that  you  be 
careful  and  diligent  in  all  their  concerns,  and 
we  order  that  you  do  well  with  their  vessels 


Barbary  Powers  59 

and  with  their  merchants.     Peace  be  with  you 
all." 

In  1804  Tripoli  was  more  vigorously  attacked, 
and  then  came  an  episode  which  Americans 
should  always  remember,  in  order  that  the  like 
may  never  befall  again.  Our  consul,  Eaton, 
was  authorized  to  set  a  back  fire  by  subsidizing 
Hamet  Caracalli,  a  banished  predecessor  and  Hamet 
elder  brother  of  the  reigning  Bashaw.  Hamet  ^^^  '' 
had  found  a  lucrative  position  in  a  respectable 
predatory  Egyptian  force  as  a  kind  of 

"  A  promising  young  robber, 
The  lieutenant  of  his  band." 

Eaton  made  the  long  journey  to  upper  Egypt, 
sought  him  out,  this  good  pirate,  and  besought 
him  to  make  war  on  his  brother.  The  deposed 
Bashaw  entered  into  a  treaty  by  which,  in  re- 
turn for  his  services,  he  was  to  receive  a  pension 
for  himself  and  his  family.  With  Eaton  he 
crossed  the  desert  to  attack  the  Tripolitan  town 
of  Derne,  took  it,  and  hoisted  the  American  Capture  of 
flag.  This  is  almost  the  only  occasion  when  ^^^' 
the  United  States  has  been  in  actual  possession 
of  African  soil ;  and  up  to  1898  it  remained  the 
only  example  of  a  land  expedition  marching 
across  foreign  territory  outside  the  continent  of 
North  America. 

At  this  juncture  Commodore    Rodgers,  who 
was  besieging  the  city  of  Tripoli,  allowed  a  peace 


6o        Military  Expeditions 

to  be  made  by  which  Hamet's  cause  was  aban- 
doned. Hamet  himself  was  taken  aboard  a  ship  ; 
but  when  his  unhappy  followers  saw  him  depart, 
and  realized  that  they  were  left  to  Tripolitan 
vengeance,  Eaton  says  that  "the  shore,  our 
camp,  and  battery  were  crowded  with  distracted 
soldiery  and  populace ;  some  calling  on  the  Ba- 
shaw, some  on  me ;  some  uttering  shrieks,  some 
execrations."  Hamet,  in  a  very  pathetic  letter, 
threw  himself  on  the  generosity  of  the  United 
States,  and  plead  for  the  execution  of  the  solemn 
promise  made  in  the  new  treaty  that  his  family 
should  be  restored  to  him.  The  poor  fellow 
could  not  realize  that  his  ally  had  made  no 
stipulation  for  his  followers,  and  did  not  concern 
itself  about  his  wives  and  children. 

The  expedition  of  1 805  made  unnecessary  any 
further  interventions  among  the  Barbary  powers 
Algiers,  1815.  till,  in  1815,  the  Dey  of  Algiers  began  to  cap- 
ture American  vessels,  and  defended  the  prac- 
tice in  a  letter  to  "the  happy,  the  great,  the 
amiable  James  Madison,  Emperor  of  America, 
may  his  reign  be  happy  and  glorious."  The 
emperor  thus  addressed,  however,  preferred  to 
answer  by  Decatur's  fleet ;  and  this  naval  force 
so  impressed  the  Dey  that  peace  was  forthwith 
made.  When  Decatur  next  went  to  demand  an 
indemnity  for  property  piratically  taken  by  the 
Dey  of  Tunis,  that  potentate  said  simply,  "I 
know  that  admiral,"  laid  down  his  telescope, 


Expansion  $i 

combed   his  beard  with   a  tortoise-shell  comb 
studded  with  diamonds,  —  and  paid  the  money. 

The  experience  of  the  period  from  1775  to 
1804  showed  clearly  that  invasions  of  an  enemy's 
country  may  be  a  useful  kind  of  warfare,  and 
that  in  dealing  with  half-civilized  powers  force 
is  the  only  argument  that  is  understood;  but 
the  government  learned  that  it  is  easier  to 
get  into  relations  with  insurgents  who  are  fight- 
ing a  common  enemy  than  to  get  out  again 
honorably. 

Meanwhile  the  United  States  had  entered  on  15.  Exp»n- 
a  long  process  of  ascertaining  and  extending  her  "J*,^*,^! 
boundaries,  a  process  in  which  more  than  fifteen  xSai. 
military  occupations  were  found  necessary.     By 
a  secret  article  of  the  Treaty  of  1783  with  Eng- 
land, the  southern  boundary  of  the  United  States 
was  to  be  the  thirty-first  parallel,  including  a 
region  stoutly  claimed  by  Spain.     In  1795  Spain 
formally  acknowledged  our  rights ;  hence  the 
retention  of  Natchez  and  Walnut  Hills  (Vicks- 
burg)  by  the  local  officials  gave  rise  to  a  lively 
intervention  in  1 797.    Lieutenant  Pope  and  forty  Mississippi, 
soldiers  came  down  the  Mississippi  to  Natchez  ;  *^^' 
when  the   Spaniards   refused   to  evacuate   the 
disputed  strip,  Pope   notified   them  that,  "  As 
commandant  of  the  troops  of  the  United  States 
at  the  lower  posts,  I  must  assure  you  that  the 
landing  of  any  troops,  or  the  repairing  of  the 
fortifications  of  the  territory  in  question,  will 


62         Military  Expeditions 


Louisiana, 
i8oa. 


be  considered  as  an  attack  upon  the  honor  and 
dignity  of  my  country."  Six  months  later  the 
Spaniards  gave  up  the  post,  and  the  region  was 
shortly  included  in  Mississippi  Territory. 

Troops  were  authorized  by  Congress  in  1802 
for  the  seizure  of  Louisiana  if  necessary,  but 
the  colony  was  peacefully  ceded  by  treaty. 
Meanwhile  Jefferson  had  despatched  a  military 
expedition,  under  command  of  Captains  Lewis 
and  Clark,  to  explore  and  take  possession  of 

Or^ou.iSos.  Oregon.^  In  August,  1805,  the  party  entered 
on  the  Pacific  slope  —  the  only  instance  in  our 
federal  history  of  the  military  taking  possession 
of  a  region  as  yet  not  occupied  by  any  civilized 
nation. 

The  cession  of  Louisiana  involved  the  country 
in  a  double  controversy,  both  Texas  and  West 
Florida  being  claimed  by  the  United  States. 
In  1806  Wilkinson  was  sent  with  an  armed 
force  into  the  Texan  disputed  territory,  and  a 
fight  with  the  Spaniards  seemed  impending;  but 
a  temporary  boundary  was  fixed  at  the  Sabine 
River.  In  the  same  year  Lieutenant  Pike,  with 
a  party  of  twenty-three  men,  was  sent  to  explore 
the  western  country,  and  presently  was  seized  by 

New  Mexico,  the  Spaniards  in  their  province  of  New  Mexico. 
Eventually  they  let  him  go  with  an  admonition ; 
and  until  1836  there  was  no  more  intervention 
on  this  border. 

1  See  Chapter  vi. 


Texas,  1806. 


1806. 


Gulf  Regions  63 

The  West  Florida  controversy  was  also  ad-  WestFionda, 
justed  by  military  intervention.  We  now  know  ^  ^°* 
that  the  French  government  had  no  intention 
of  taking  West  Florida  as  a  part  of  the  Louisi- 
ana transfer  of  1800,  and  hence  could  not  have 
transferred  it  to  the  United  States  in  1803.  In 
1 804  a  United  States  customs  district  was  created, 
including  part  of  the  disputed  area.  After  some 
local  revolutions  in  18 10  President  Madison  sent 
the  civilian  Governor  Claiborne  to  take  posses- 
sion of  the  disputed  region  as  far  as  the  Pearl 
River,  as  part  of  his  Territory  of  Orleans.  The 
rest  of  West  Florida,  including  Mobile,  was  still 
held  by  Spain;  but  in  January,  181  r.  Congress  West  Florida 
took  the  extraordinary  step -never  since  re-  ^S.-*'' 
peated  —  of  passing  a  secret  joint  resolution. 
The  President  was  authorized  to  seize  both  the 
disputed  and  the  undisputed  Spanish  territory 
south  of  Georgia ;  nevertheless,  Madison  held 
off  till  April,  181 3,  when  Mobile  was  at  last 
occupied  by  a  military  force  under  Wilkinson. 

At  this  juncture  the  war  with  Great  Britain 
broke  out.  Although  occasioned  by  aggressions 
on  American  commerce,  the  immediate  object 
was  the  conquest  of  Canada  by  the  United  Canada. 
States,  and  therefore  repeated  expeditions  were  ^^^^^^^• 
sent  across  the  border  in  1812,  181 3,  and  18 14. 
Hull  attacked  Maiden  ;  Van  Rensselaer  failed 
at  Lewiston,  and  Smyth  at  Chippewa ;  Wilkin- 
son   withdrew  from    Chrysler's   Farm ;    Brown 


64        Military  Expeditions 

won  the  battles  of  Chippewa  and  Lundy's  Lane; 
but  they  were  all  driven  back  after  a  brief  occu- 
pation, sometimes  of  only  a  few  hours.  Fort 
George,  on  the  lower  Niagara,  was  almost  the 
only  Canadian  post  held  for  any  considerable 
time;  William  Henry  Harrison  penetrated  to 
the  river  Thames,  but  abandoned  the  territory 
again ;  and  Dearborn  and  Pike  captured  York 
(now  Toronto),  the  first  provincial  capital  ever 
taken  by  the  Americans.  Unfortunately,  during 
Dearborn's  brief  occupancy  the  so-called  "  Parlia- 
ment House"  was  burned.  No  orders  for  this 
had  been  given,  and  the  United  States  disclaimed 
responsibility :  it  was  a  kind  of  accident  likely 
to  happen  in  such  a  foray,  but  it  was  made  an 
excuse  for  the  later  destruction  of  Washington 
by  the  British.  After  the  evacuation  of  Fort 
Erie,  nearly  across  the  river  from  Buffalo,  in 
September,  1814,  there  was  no  Canadian  place 
held  by  American  troops. 
East  Florida,  The  long  pending  contest  over  the  Floridas 
1814.  ^^g  jjgjjj.  adjusted  by  a  strong  hand  :  three  inva- 

sions without  a  declaration  of  war  were  required 
to  convince  the  Spaniards  that  they  might  make 
a  virtue  of  the  necessity  of  ceding  the  region. 
The  first  invasion  was  simply  an  extension  of 
regular  military  operations  to  neutral  territory 
used  as  a  base.  In  July,  18 14,  the  British  forces 
seized  the  Spanish  fort  near  the  port  of  Pensa- 
cola,  and  made  it  a  base  for  an  attack  on  Mobile ; 


Floridas  65 

the  American  commander,  Andrew  Jackson,  was 
not  a  man  to  stand  on  punctilio,  and  without 
orders,  but  with  entire  justification,  he  pushed 
with  three  thousand  men  to  Pensacola,  and  in 
November  stormed  the  town,  and  held  it  for 
some  days  before  withdrawing. 

Three  years  later  the  thorough-going  scoundrel 
Jones  Aury  made  Galveston  Island  a  centre  for 
smuggling,  slave  trade,  and  piracy.  The  United 
States  issued  orders  to  suppress  the  nuisance 
—  though  outside  our  territory  —  by  a  naval 
force.  The  buccaneers  therefore  descended  on  Ameii* 
Amelia  Island,  off  the  coast  of  Florida.  President  ^^i"'*' «8»7. 
Monroe  deemed  that  "the  right  of  self-defence 
never  ceases.  It  is  among  the  most  sacred,  and 
alike  necessary  to  nations  and  to  individuals." 
Resting  on  that  right,  and  on  the  secret  act  of 
January,  181 1,  he  sent  Captain  Henly  with 
the  ship  of  war  John  Adams,  and  Major  Bank- 
head  with  a  land  force,  to  take  possession. 
When  Aury  wanted  to  negotiate,  the  two  Amer- 
icans answered,  laconically,  "  As  officers  in  the 
service  of  the  United  States  we  are  bound  to 
obey  orders  emanating  from  the  authorities  of 
our  government  without  any  discussion  or  ani- 
madversion on  our  part  as  to  the  correctness 
of  them ;  we  propose  to  land  a  force  to-day, 
and  to  hoist  the  American  flag ;  under  that  flag 
no  oppression  or  unjust  measures  will  ever  be 
witnessed."     The  Spanish  minister  protested, 


i8i8. 


66        Military  Expeditions 

but  the  island  was  held  till  ceded  by  the  Treaty 
of  1819. 
East  Florida.  In  1818  Jackson  was  the  general  in  command 
on  the  Florida  borders,  and  again  invaded  Span- 
ish territory.  Whether  he  was  acting  under 
orders  or  contrary  to  orders  is  still  a  disputed 
question ;  he  had  given  informal  notice  to  the 
authorities  in  Washington  that  he  meant  to  en- 
ter the  territory,  and  to  his  mind  the  policy  of 
the  government  was  thus  satisfactorily  estab- 
lished. Convinced  that  the  Spaniards  were 
stirring  up  Indian  hostilities  across  the  boundary, 
Jackson  crossed  the  border,  marched  to  the 
Spanish  post  of  St.  Marks,  and  court-martialled 
and  executed  two  British  subjects  found  in 
doubtful  relations  with  the  Indians. 

Up  to  this  episode  there  had  never  been  such 
rigor  toward  inhabitants  of  territory  invaded  by 
the  United  States  troops,  even  in  time  of  war. 
It  was  the  first  time  also  that  a  military  com- 
mander ventured  to  create  a  territorial  govern- 
ment on  his  own  responsibility.  As  a  result  of 
what  he  called  "  the  immutable  principle  of  self- 
defence,"  Jackson  on  his  own  responsibility 
organized  the  region  on  the  Spanish  model, 
"  estabUshed  "  the  revenue  laws  of  the  United 
States,  and  even  appointed  a  collector  of  cus- 
toms. Eventually  Jackson's  measure  was  up- 
held by  the  administration ;  and  though  the 
territory  was  restored  to  Spain,  it  was  soon  after 


Protective  67 

returned  to  the  United  States  under  the  Treaty 
of  1 8 19.  By  an  opera-bouffe  fatality,  the  first 
governor  of  Florida  was  Jackson,  and  he  re- 
ceived, and  cheerfully  exercised  for  the  time 
being,  all  the  arbitrary  powers  of  the  previous 
Spanish  captain-general. 

In  the  twenty -two  years  from  1797  to  18 19  Summary, 
there  had  arisen  twenty  cases  of  well-defined  ex-  ^797-1819. 
peditions  into  foreign  or  disputed  territory ;  of 
these,  eleven  were  in  the  midst  of  war ;  of  the 
rest,  nearly  all  were  forcible  attempts  to  settle 
territorial  controversies  with  Spain.  The  work 
was  so  thoroughly  done  that,  after  18 18,  there 
was  for  eighty  years  no  expedition  directed 
against  Spanish  territory. 

Although,  after  the  War  of  18 12,  the  people  of  16.  Protec- 
the  United  States  felt  a  consciousness  of  national  ^^^^  ^^* 
power,  and  a  desire  to  make  republican  govern-  1823-1835. 
ment  and  American  influence  felt  in  other  parts 
of  the  world,  the  only  cases  of  actual  intervention 
between  1820  and  1835  were  in  the  Falkland 
Islands  and  in  Sumatra.     The  Falklands  were  a  Faikiands, 
resort  for  sealers,  and  were  supposed  to  be  a  "no  ^  ^^* 
man's  land;"  but  in  183 1  a  sealing  vessel  was 
seized  by  persons  who  had  formed  a  colony  and 
purported  to  act  under  a  commission  from  Bue- 
nos Ayres.     Thereupon  Jackson  sent  the  ship 
Lexington,  commanded  by  Captain  Duncan,  who 
uprooted  the  colony   completely.      Two   years 
later  Great  Britain  claimed  the  islands,  and  the 


68         Military  Expeditions 

controversy  ended.  In  183 1  the  P^/^w^r,  Cap. 
Sumatra,  tain  Downes,  was  sent  to  Sumatra  to  punish 
**3**  "a  band  of  lawless  pirates";  and  the  town  of 

Quallah  Battoo  was  effectively  bombarded. 

During   this    period,    however,   the    United 
States  sent  a  few  troops  to  Oregon,  where,  under 
the  Conventions  of  18 18  and   1828  with  Great 
Britain,  there  was  a  temporary  joint  operation. 
No  actual  force  was  used  then,  or  in  the  more 
acute  Oregon  controversy  of  1846. 
17,  Aggrei-       The  twenty-five  years  from  1836  to  186 1  were 
tions^******''  "^^rked   by  a  new  spirit  in   American  foreign 
1836-1850.      relations.     It  was  a  time  of  conquest  and  desire 
for  more  conquests :  Texas,  New  Mexico,  and 
California  were  acquired  by  the  Union  through 
military  and  naval  expeditions,  and  serious  efforts 
were  made  to  annex  Cuba,  Mexico,  and  parts  of 
Central  America ;  the  development  of  California 
New  created  new  interest  in  a  route  across  the  Isth- 

mus, and  hence  led  to  new  interventions ;  China 
and  Japan  were  opened  to  American  trade  by  a 
pressure  which  several  times  ended  in  armed 
violence ;  there  was  an  effort  to  raise  the  Ameri- 
can flag  in  Hawaii;  and  President  Buchanan 
formed  a  plan  of  systematic  interventions  in 
Central  and  South  America.  The  historian  Von 
Hoist  sees  in  all  this  only  the  hand  of  the  ma- 
lignant slave  power:  it  is  true  that  the  defend- 
ers of  slavery  were  advocates  of  a  "  vigorous 
foreign  policy " ;    but  the  movement  had  even 


Elements. 


Texas  69 

deeper  roots  than  the  purpose  to  gain  slavehold- 
ing  territory.  The  young  giant  among  nations 
was  becoming  conscious  of  his  strength,  and 
liked  to  stretch  out  his  arms  to  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth. 

The  first  episode  in  this  period  of  aggressive 
intervention  was  in  1836,  when  Jackson  sent  a 
force  into  Texas,  then  a  part  of  Mexico.  The  Texas,  1836. 
alleged  occasion  was  Indian  depredations  sixty 
miles  from  the  frontier ;  the  real  occasion  was 
the  desire  to  give  encouragement  to  the  revolu- 
tion in  Texas.  General  Gaines  not  only  entered 
Texas,  he  also  called-  on  the  governors  of  four 
states  to  send  him  militia.  This  was  too  much 
for  Jackson,  who  had  strong  opinions  against 
other  people  who  acted  without  orders,  and  he 
withdrew  the  troops  with  "  impressive  warnings." 

President  Tyler  early  began  a  series  of  mili- 
tary expeditions,  which  ended  with  the  conquest 
of  California.  In  October,  1842,  Commodore  California. 
Thomas  Ap  Catesby  Jones  entered  the  harbor  ^^* 
of  Monterey,  California,  hauled  down  the  Mexi- 
can flag,  sent  a  garrison  to  the  fort,  and  ran  up 
the  American  flag ;  his  only  excuse  was  that  he 
had  read  a"  newspaper  report  that  war  had  been 
declared  by  Mexico  on  the  United  States.  The 
next  day  he  saw  the  error  of  his  ways,  took  down 
his  flag,  and  withdrew ;  later  the  government  at 
Washington  disavowed  the  act,  and  made  an 
apology  to  justly  offended  Mexico. 


7©        Military  Expeditions 

In  the  same  year,  1842,  however,  Tyler  sent 
young  Captain  Fremont  to  explore  the  stretch 
of  country  about  the  head-waters  of  the  Platte 
River.      With  about  twenty  hired   civilians  he 
New  Mexico,  crosscd  over,  uninvited,  to  Mexican  territory  on 
^  ^  the  upper  tributaries  of  the  Colorado,  but  re- 

turned without  any  encounter.  A  year  later 
Fremont  was  despatched  ostensibly  "  to  connect 
the  reconnoissancc  of  1842  with  the  surveys  on 
the  coast  of  the  Pacific " ;  but  his  party  of 
fifty  included  three  artillerymen,  who  handled 
a  government  howitzer.  Early  in  1844  he 
California.  reached  California,  without  permission  from 
1844.  Mexico ;    and  again  made  his  way  unmolested 

over  the  mountains  eastward. 

Meanwhile  a  treaty  was  on  foot  for  the  an- 
Texas,  1844.  ncxation  of  Texas ;  and  in  P"'ebruary,  1 844,  our 
minister  to  the  "  lone  star  state "  took  the  re- 
sponsibility of  declaring  that  Mexico  would  not 
be  permitted  by  the  United  States  to  invade 
Texas  as  a  retaliation  for  the  negotiation.  Presi- 
dent Tyler  disavowed  him  on  the  ground  that 
"  the  employment  of  the  army  and  navy  against 
a  foreign  power  with  which  the  United  States 
are  at  peace  is  not  within  the  competency  of 
the  President."  Nevertheless,  on  April  i,  1844, 
Calhoun,  then  Secretary  of  State,  promised, 
"during  the  pendency  of  the  treaty,  to  use  all 
the  means  placed  within  his  power  to  protect 
Texas  from  foreign  invasion."    The  treaty  failed. 


California  71 

When,  in  1845,  annexation  was  accomplished,  no 
actual  force  was  employed,  because  Mexico 
made  no  military  resistance ;  but  the  principle  of 
armed  intervention  had  been  cynically  avowed, 
and  was  soon  to  be  put  into  active  service. 

It  was  President  Polk's  purpose,  from  the 
beginning  of  his  administration,  to  provoke  a 
war  with  Mexico,  in  order  to  have  a  pretext  for 
seizing  California.  The  consequence  was  that  California, 
in  1845  and  1846,  just  before  and  during  the  ^^^' 
war,  eight  different  military  expeditions  were 
sent  out  into  Mexican  territory.  In  1845  in- 
structions were  issued  to  naval  officers  to  be 
ready  to  seize  California ;  and  Fremont  was 
again  despatched  for  his  third  and  most  bellig- 
erent entry  into  foreign  regions.  He  had  an 
armed  party  of  sixty  men,  and  on  his  arrival 
in  California  was  warned  off  by  the  Mexican 
authorities,  and  betook  himself  for  the  time  to 
Oregon. 

When  war  broke  out  with  Mexico  in  May,  ^846,  New  Mexico 
land  expeditions  were  at  once  despatched  to  ^fj^6°'" 
California  and  New  Mexico,  and  naval  forces  to 
the  Gulf  and  the  Pacific.  President  Polk  had 
already  accepted  as  his  own  the  extravagant 
claims  of  the  newly  annexed  state  of  Texas  to 
a  part  of  the  Mexican  province  of  New  Mexico, 
and  had  thrown  away  the  chance  of  securing  by 
amicable  negotiation  Mexican  consent  to  the 
proposed  frontier.     Mexico  protested ;    where- 


72        Military  Expeditions 

upon,  without  any  adequate  attempt  at  a  peace- 
able arrangement,  and  without  any  information 
that  the  Mexicans  had  resisted,  Polk  made  war 
upon  them,  and  in  addition  to  Texas  he  took 
possession  of  six  hundred  thousand  square 
miles  of  territory.  Colonel  Kearny  marched 
inland  to  Santa  F6,  and  in  August  seized  New 
Mexico ;  thence  he  marched  to  California  with 
sixty  men.  He  found  on  arrival  in  December 
that,  without  waiting  for  news  of  war  or  for 
orders,  Fremont  had  come  back,  had  aided  the 
American  residents  in  California  to  assert  their 
independence,  and  had  been  fighting  the  Mexi- 
cans ;  and  that  Commodore  Sloat  had  also  occu- 
pied Monterey.  A  few  weeks  later  the  Mexican 
troops  were  driven  out  of  the  coast  region. 
Meanwhile  the  war  had  been  carried  into 
Mexico,  Mexico  itsclf.  Under  orders  from  Polk,  General 
1846.  Taylor  marched  through  the  disputed  strip  of 

territory  west  of  the  Nueces,  and  in  April,  1846, 
closed  the  Rio  Grande  to  navigation.  The 
Mexicans  were  justified  in  considering  this  an 
invasion,  and  attacked  Taylor  then  and  there. 
Three  later  invasions  —  Doniphan's  into  Chi- 
huahua, Taylor's  southward  to  Buena  Vista,  and 
Scott's  to  the  City  of  Mexico  —  were  simple  acts 
of  declared  war  in  undoubted  foreign  territory. 
This  is  the  only  purposeful  conquest  in  our 
history ;  and  the  magnificent  country  which  it 
brought   to   us   on   the  Pacific  coast  must  not 


Govern- 
ments, 1846- 


Mexico  73 

blind  us  to  the  fact  that  it  was  a  war  waged  to 
extend  slavery,  and  to  counteract  the  influence 
of  the  free  states  in  Congress,  and  that  it 
straightway  led  to  sectional  rivalries  within  the 
Union  which  speedily  and  inevitably  brought 
on  the  Civil  War.  Nor  was  the  Mexican  war 
necessary :  Texas  was  already  secured,  and  Cali- 
fornia must  eventually  have  fallen  to  the  United 
States  without  a  war  with  Mexico. 

The  political  status  of  the  four  regions  thus 
occupied  —  the  Rio  Grande  strip.  New  Mexico,  Temporary 
CaUfornia,  and  old  Mexico  —  is  most  interesting 
in  itself,  and  is  a  significant  precedent  for  our  1848 
relations  with  the  Philippines  and  the  Antilles. 
Kearny,  without  waiting  for  orders  or  for  a 
treaty  of  peace,  proclaimed  New  Mexico  not 
only  a  part  of  the  United  States,  but  also  a 
"territory,"  appointed  a  civil  governor,  and 
declared  the  Mexicans  to  be  subjects  of  the 
United  States.  Commodore  Sloat  proclaimed 
California  to  be  a  permanent  part  of  the  United 
States,  and  his  successor,  Stockton,  declared  it 
a  territory  and  made  Fremont  "governor"; 
then,  under  orders  from  the  President,  Fremont 
set  up  a  special  ariff  and  tonnage  duty  in  Cali- 
fornia. General  Scott  in  Mexico  levied  military 
contributions,  took  charge  of  the  custom-house, 
and  designated  courts. 

Late   in   the   war  the   administration   found 
itself    in    the   position   of    the  foreigner  who 


74        Military  Expeditions 


Project  of 
taking  all  of 
Mexico. 


attempted  to  fight  the  wildcat.  When  a  friend 
asked,  "  Shall  I  come  and  help  you  catch  him  ?" 
the  belligerent  answered,  "  No ;  but  I  wish  you 
would  come  and  help  me  let  him  go."  The 
Mexican  administration  was  so  disrupted  that, 
for  a  time,  no  one  could  be  found  with  authority 
to  make  peace,  and  it  was  soberly  proposed  to 
annex  the  whole  country.  A  peace  was  at  last 
adjusted  early  in  1848  ;  the  United  States  troops 
were  shortly  withdrawn  from  the  present  terri- 
tory of  Mexico,  and  the  ordinary  revenue  sys- 
tem of  the  United  States  was  applied  to  all  the 
annexed  regions. 

Up  to  1850  there  had  been  neither  show  nor 
threat  of  force  against  Europe  or  the  adjacent 
continent  of  Africa,  since  the  end  of  the  Bar- 
bary  troubles  in  18 1 5.  Now  came  a  very  unusual 
demonstration  of  naval  force  in  the  Mediterra- 
nean Sea.  In  1853  Martin  Koszta,  a  Hungarian 
who  had  declared  his  intention  to  become  an 
Turkey,  1853.  American  citizen,  was  seized  at  Smyrna  and 
put  on  board  an  Austrian  man-of-war.  Commo- 
dore Ingraham,  of  the  United  States  ship  St. 
Louis,  under  directions  from  our  charg^  at 
Constantinople,  declared  that  he  would  recover 
Koszta  by  force  of  arms,  if  necessary ;  and  the 
man  was  thereupon  released. 

The  process  of  military  expeditions  had  mean- 
while been  applied  to  force  open  the  gates  of 
Eastern  commerce.    Up  to  1844  Americans  had 


18.  Expedi- 
tions become 
a  Policy, 
1850-1860. 


China  and  Japan  75 

no  treaty  rights  in  China,  and  Japan  was  still  a  Japan, 
sealed  country,  where  even  shipwrecked  sailors  '^^^  ^ 
were  treated  with  inhospitality  or  cruelty.  Be- 
tween 1849  ^"^^  1852  four  naval  expeditions 
were  sent  to  Japan  to  exert  a  pressure  on  that 
country ;  the  successive  efforts  of  Glynn,  Aulick, 
Preble,  and  Kennedy  were  not  effective,  but  in 
1854  a  fifth  and  imposing  squadron  had  better 
fortune,  and  Commodore  Matthew  C.  Perry  at 
length  obtained  the  long-desired  Japanese  treaty. 

The  internal  revolutions  in  China  gave  rise,  china, 
between  1854  and  1864,  to  two  cases  of  actual  ^^54-1856, 
fighting.  In  1854,  and  again  in  1855,  Ameri- 
can forces  were  landed  in  China,  first  to  protect 
and  then  to  oppose  the  Taiping  rebels.  In 
1856  Commodore  Armstrong,  in  the  Portsmouth^ 
attacked  and  destroyed  four  Chinese  barrier 
forts  near  Canton,  without  any  specific  orders 
from  home.  Three  years  later  Commodore  Tat- 
nall  saw  the  British  Admiral  Hope  worsted  in  a 
fight  with  the  forts ;  whereupon  he  exclaimed, 
"  Blood  is  thicker  than  water,"  and  went  to  the 
assistance  of  his  fellow  Anglo-Saxon. 

A  third  episode  is  not  a  source  of  pride  to 
Americans.  A  belligerent  and  uninformed  policy 
brought  us  into  hostile  relations  with  Japan  in  japan.  1863. 
June,  1863.  The  American  steamer  Pembroke 
was  fired  upon  while  attempting  to  pass  through 
the  channel  of  Shimonoseki,  then  blockaded  by 
Japanese  insurgents.     Captain  McDougall,  of 


76        Military  Expeditions 


Lobos 

Islands, 
1852. 


Nicaragua, 
1851. 


the  United  States  ship  Wyoming,  attacked  the 
batteries  and  sank  two  Japanese  vessels.  The 
next  year,  1864,  the  forts  were  again  attacked 
and  destroyed  by  a  combined  Dutch,  French, 
English,  and  American  force,  the  latter  consist- 
ing of  a  chartered  steamer  with  one  gun.  This 
very  unusual  case  of  joint  action  with  foreign 
powers  was  followed  by  the  exaction  of  a  dis- 
proportionate indemnity  from  the  imperial  gov- 
ernment, which  had  disavowed  responsibility ; 
many  years  later  the  United  States  honorably 
refunded  its  share,  and  thus  atoned  for  the 
injustice  of  the  money  fine. 

The  decade  from  1850  to  i860  was  a  time 
when  expeditions  became  familiar  engines  of 
diplomacy  in  America.  The  first  instance  was 
an  order,  in  1852,  to  protect  from  Peruvian  inter- 
ference American  vessels  loading  guano  in  the 
Lobos  Islands,  an  order  soon  countermanded. 
Subsequently  an  act  of  Congress  defined  the 
method  by  which  the  discoverer  of  an  unappro- 
priated and  barren  island  might  bring  it  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  his  country. 

The  growing  interest  in  Isthmus  transit  gave 
rise  to  several  intei*ventions  or  proposed  inter- 
ventions. The  United  States  threatened  force 
when,  in  185 1,  the  British  ship  Express  fired  on 
the  American  steamer  Prometheus  at  Greytown. 
The  serious  difficulty,  however,  was  the  bom- 
bardment of  Greytown,  a  place  held  by  a  band 


Isthmus  77 

of  adventurers  in  territory  disputed  between  Nic-  Nicaragua, 
aragua  and  the  king  of  the  Mosquito  Indians.  ^^^ 
Under  authority  of  Congress,  Captain  Hollins 
in  1854  trained  the  guns  of  the  ship  Cyatte  oxv 
Greytown ;  no  satisfaction  being  given,  he  bom- 
barded and  nearly  destroyed  the  place,  and  a 
landing  party  set  the  remaining  houses  on  fire. 

At  another  point  in  Central  America,  inter- 
vention was  proposed  for  the  protection  of 
travel  across  the  Isthmus.  The  United  States  Colombia, 
of  Colombia  attempted  to  lay  a  tonnage  tax,  ^^^7. 
which  the  United  States  of  America  considered 
a  breach  of  the  treaty.  Hence,  in  1857,  Presi- 
dent Buchanan  sent  naval  vessels  to  both  sides 
of  the  Isthmus,  but  there  was  no  landing  of 
troops  at  that  time. 

The  year  1857  witnessed  a  very  picturesque  Nicaragua, 
case  of  military  intervention  —  this  time  to  aid  ^^^'^' 
a  friendly  power.  William  Walker,  who  had 
several  times  invaded  Nicaragua  as  a  filibuster, 
sailed  from  New  Orleans  to  Saltillo,  and  began 
to  capture  vessels  and  kill  men  under  the  very 
nose  of  Commodore  Paulding.  That  officer 
promptly  used  his  naval  force  to  arrest  Walker, 
and  sent  him  home  for  trial.  By  what  seems 
like  the  plot  of  a  Bowery  farce,  the  commodore 
was  censured  for  exceeding  his  authority,  and 
Walker  was  set  free ;  but  the  Nicaraguan  gov- 
ernment was  duly  grateful  for  riddance  from  a 
knave. 


7 8        Military  Expeditions 


Paraguay, 
1858. 


S)Tia,  1858. 


Buchanan's 

Projects, 

1857-1860. 


One  more  episode  needs  to  be  mentioned  in 
this  decade.  Squabbles  over  a  convention  of 
1850,  which  Paraguay  would  not  ratify,  led  to 
ill  feeling;  and  in  1855  the  United  States  steamer 
Water  Witch  was  fired  upon  in  a  channel  of  the 
river  Paraguay.  After  long  and  unsuccessful 
diplomacy  President  Buchanan  asked,  and  Con- 
gress in  1858  granted,  authority  to  the  President 
"  to  adopt  such  measures  and  use  such  force  as, 
in  his  judgment,  may  be  necessary  and  desir- 
able." An  expedition  of  nineteen  vessels  and 
twenty-five  hundred  men  was  sent  out,  and  in 
1859,  without  firing  a  gun,  obtained  apologies 
and  treaties  and  indemnity. 

The  successful  interventions  in  China,  Grey- 
town,  and  Paraguay,  together  with  a  naval  ex- 
pedition to  Syria  in  1858,  and  a  proposed  naval 
expedition  to  Java  in  the  same  year,  seem  to 
have  turned  Buchanan's  head;  for  he  came 
before  Congress  again  and  again  to  request 
that  he  receive  general  powers  to  intervene 
outside  our  boundary,  inasmuch  as  "the  Ex- 
ecutive cannot  legitimately  resort  to  force  with- 
out the  direct  authority  of  Congress,  except  in 
resisting  and  repelling  hostile  attacks."  He 
wanted  to  use  troops  to  keep  the  Isthmus  route 
open ;  he  wanted  "  a  temporary  protectorate 
over  the  northern  provinces  of  Mexico " ;  he 
even  tried  to  arrange  with  one  of  the  factions 
in  Mexico  to  invite  his  intervention ;  Mexican 


Aggressions  79 

steamers  were  captured ;  he  thought  he  ought 
to  have  general  authority  "  to  enter  the  territory 
of  Mexico,  Nicaragua,  and  New  Granada  for 
the  purpose  of  defending  the  persons  and  prop- 
erty of  American  citizens " ;  he  negotiated  a 
treaty  for  the  occupation  of  the  Isthmus  of 
Tehuantepec.  The  scheme  of  Buchanan  would 
have  made  the  President  the  dictator  of  Latin- 
America,  backed  up  by  the  army  and  navy 
and  resources  of  the  United  States ;  it  marks 
the  high  tide  of  the  policy  of  intervention. 

Though  there  was  but  one  foreign  war  in  the  summary, 
period  1 836-1861,  there  were  about  twenty-five 
cases  of  armed  intervention :  the  United  States 
was   rapidly   becoming   the   policeman   of    the 
Americas  and  the  terror  of  the  Orient. 

The  Civil  War  put  an  end  to  the  wild  ambi- 
tions of  Buchanan  and  his  friends,  for  there  19.  Expedi- 
were  too  many  "  alarums   and  incursions "  at  ^*"'*  ^ 

■'  Amenca, 

home.     Nevertheless,  there  were  some  instances  1861-1873. 
of  intervention,  besides  the  seizure  of  the  Con- 
federate commissioners  on  the    Trent  in   1861. 

Force  was  threatened  against  Colombia  in  1862  Trent  Case, 

on  the  old  question  of  tonnage  duties.     General  *^^^- 

Dix  ordered  his  troops  in  1864  to  follow  across  Colombia, 

the  borders  into  Canada  any  persons  who  might  '^^* 

invade  the  United  States,  and  he  was  promptly  Canada, 

disavowed  by  Lincoln ;  but  in  the  same  year  ^^^• 

Lincoln  seemed  to  favor  pursuing  hostile  Indians  ^"'^^^west 

into  the  British  Northwestern  territory.  1864. 


8o        Military  Expeditions 


All  of  these  were  minor  questions;  the  two 
really  serious  occasions  for  intervention  were 
both  in  Mexico.  At  the  end  of  the  Civil  War 
a  great  force  of  troops  was  directed  toward  the 
Texan  border.  General  Grant  assumed  that  in- 
vasion of  Mexico  was  bound  to  come;  and  for 
a  short  time  our  troops  did  occupy  the  Mexican 

France,  1865.  town  of  Matamoras.  France  was  firmly  and 
finally  warned  that  the  further  maintenance  of 
a  force  intended  to  overawe  the  Mexicans  and 
destroy  their  republican  government  was  an  act 
unfriendly  toward  the  United  States,  For- 
tunately these  expressive  hints  were  enough  to 
cause   the   withdrawal   of    the    French   troops. 

Austria,  1866.  Austria,  in  1866,  showed  some  disposition  to 
bolster  up  Maximilian,  but  Seward  gave  her  to 
understand  that  no  levies  from  that  country 
would  be  permitted  to  replace  the  French. ^ 

Moderation.  It  is  certainly  remarkable  that,  with  the  most 
powerful  army  and  navy  of  its  whole  history  at 
its  command,  the  government  of  the  United 
States  from  1861  to  1872  forbore  to  follow  up 
the  policy  of  interference  practised  during  the 
previous  quarter  century.  Apparently  both  Lin- 
coln, "the  great  war  President,"  and  Grant, 
"  the  citizen-soldier,"  were  averse  to  actual  in- 
tervention in  the  affairs  of  neighbors,  and  found 
means  of  securing  their  ends  without  foreign 
expeditions. 

*  See  Chapter  i. 


American  8i 

Since  1873  interventions  have  again  become  20.  Commer- 
an  active  part  of  the  foreign  policy  of  the  coun-  ^thropic 
try,  but  the  field  has  been  widened  :  the  western  Expeditions, 
coast  of  South  America  has  been  included ;  the 
sphere  of  American  influence  in  the  Pacific  has 
extended  beyond  Hawaii  to  Samoa;   the  spicy 
islands   of  the   farthest   East   have  heard  the 
thunder  of  American  guns;  and  American  troops 
have  participated  in  the  occupation  of  Pekin. 

In  1873   Grant  made   an  attempt  to  secure 
from  European  governments  a  joint  interven- 
tion in  order  to  adjust  the  perplexing  Cuban  Cuba,  1873. 
question ;   but  the  trouble  was  happily  settled 
without  carrying  the  suggestion  into  effect.     In 
Isthmus  affairs  the  principal  incident  was  Presi- 
dent Arthur's  treaty  with  Nicaragua  in  1884,  by  Nicaragua, 
which  the  United  States  was  to  have  a  standing  ^^^ 
right  to  intervene  for  the  protection  of  a  canal ; 
and  that  treaty   was   withdrawn  by  President 
Cleveland  in  1885.     Toward  Canada  there  was,  Canada, 
in  1 88 1,  a  threat  of  pursuing  Sitting  Bull  across  *^^^' 
the  border,  and  from   1886  to   1890  Canadian 
sealers  were  captured  in  Bering  Sea ;  the  Paris  Bering  Sea. 
Arbitration  Commission  of  1895  held  these  cap-  ^^^^^^^o- 
tures   to  be  unwarranted,   and  allowed  an  in- 
demnity  to   Great    Britain.     In    Mexico,    from  Mexico. 
1874  to  1886,  there  were  half  a  dozen  cases  »874-i886. 
of  pursuit  of   Indians  over  the  border,  in  one 
of   which  the  responsible  officer  was   Colonel 
Shaffer,  later  commander  of  the  forces  invading 


82        Military  Expeditions 

Cuba;  and  in  1882  a  treaty  authorized  such 
pursuit,  and  thus  took  it  out  of  the  category  of 
armed  intervention. 

Chile,  1881.  In  Chile  we  have  thrice  proposed  interven- 
tion. After  the  Chilean  conquest  of  Peru  in 
1 88 1,  Mr.  Hurlbut,  our  minister  to  Peru,  warned 
Chile  that  "the  United  States  would  deeply 
regret  if  she  should  change  her  purpose  and  be 
carried  away  in  a  career  of  conquest."  Secre- 
tary Blaine  disavowed  the  phrase,  but  restated 
the  principle  in  the  form,  "the  exercise  of  the 
right  of  absolute  conquest  is  dangerous  to  the 
best  interests  of  all  the  republics  of  this  conti- 
nent." This  rather  belligerent  intimation  was 
withdrawn   a  few   months   later  by   Secretary 

ChUe,  X891.  Frelinghuysen.  In  1891  the  United  States  gov- 
ernment authorized  the  pursuit  of  the  Chilean 
insurgent  steamer  Itata,  which  had  slipped 
out  of  an  American  port  without  clearance 
papers ;  eventually  the  vessel  returned  volun- 
tarily, and  the  federal  courts  held  that  there 
was  not  ground  for  naval  capture.  A  few 
months  later  occurred  the  painful  incident  of 
the  attack  on  the  sailors  of  the  United  States 
ship  Baltimore  in  the  streets  of  Valparaiso. 
Since   proper  redress   was   delayed.    President 

ChUe,  1892.  Harrison,  in  January,  1892,  recommended  mili- 
tary action  by  Congress ;  but  the  Chilean  gov- 
ernment hastened  to  make  suitable  apologies 
and  reparation. 


Chile  and  Hawaii  83 

Of  the  Venezuelan  incident  in  i895-i896it  is  Venezuela, 
unnecessary  here  to  speak  further  than  to  say  ^^^' 
that  President  Cleveland  plainly  intimated  that 
the  United  States  might  have  to  fight  for  its 
principles  of  peace  and  good  will;  and  the 
matter  was  adjusted  by  concessions  on  the  part 
of  England. 

Interventions  in  the  Pacific  have  kept  pace 
with  those  in  America,  and  both  Hawaii  and  Hawau,  1851. 
Samoa  have  been  the  scenes  of  repeated  land- 
ings and  occupations.  Webster  promised,  in 
185 1,  that  "the  Navy  Department  will  receive 
instructions  to  place  and  keep  the  naval  arma- 
ment of  the  United  States  in  the  Pacific  Ocean 
in  such  a  state  of  strength  and  preparation  as 
will  be  required  for  the  preservation  of  the  honor 
and  dignity  of  the  United  States  and  the  safety 
of  the  government  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands." 
This  pledge  was  carried  out  in  1874,  when  a  new  Hawaii,  1874. 
sovereign  was  to  be  chosen  at  Honolulu  and  vio- 
lence was  feared ;  for  the  American  minister, 
at  the  request  of  the  Hawaiian  authorities,  called 
on  Commander  Belknap  to  land  a  hundred  and 
fifty  men  from  the  Tuscarora  and  Portsmouth^ 
and  they  remained  eight  days  on  guard,  along- 
side a  similar  British  force.  Again,  in  1889,  Hawaii,  1889. 
Commodore  Woodward,  at  the  request  of  the 
American  minister,  landed  marines  at  Honolulu 
to  protect  the  legation  —  and,  incidentally,  to 
have  "a  favorable  effect  on  the  population." 


84         Military  Expeditions 

Hawaii.  1893.  When  a  still  more  serious  revolution  broke 
out  at  Honolulu  on  January  16,  1893,  the  Ameri- 
can minister,  Stevens,  at  the  request  of  a  revo- 
lutionary committee,  called  on  Captain  Wiltse 
of  the  Boston  to  land  a  force.  Among  the  un- 
usual circumstances  of  this  intervention  was  the 
request  of  the  insurgents  that  Captain  Wiltse 
take  command  of  their  troops  as  well  as  of  his 
own ;  the  quartering  of  a  large  body  of  the 
Americans  in  a  hall  away  from  the  legation  and 
near  the  government  buildings ;  the  offer  of  an- 
nexation by  the  new  government ;  and  the  for- 
mal "  protection  of  the  United  States,"  which 
Stevens  announced  on  his  own  responsibility  on 
February  i,  and  emphasized  by  raising  the 
American  flag  over  the  islands.  By  order  of 
President  Cleveland  the  flag  was  withdrawn 
March  31  ;  and  an  unsuccessful  attempt  was 
made  to  restore  the  political  conditions  of  Ha- 
waii as  they  had  been  before  the  revolution. 
Samoa,  1877,  The  history  of  intervention  in  Samoa  is  very 
1878,1886.  similar:  three  times— in  1877,  1878,  and  1886— 
American  consuls  raised  their  flag  over  that 
group  of  islands ;  but  though  the  home  govern- 
ment never  accepted  the  proposed  cessions,  it 
insisted  on  a  joint  interest  in  Samoa  with  Eng- 
land and  Germany,  and  in  1889  sent  out  war- 
ships to  assert  that  interest.  The  trouble  was 
adjusted  by  a  tripartite  treaty,  establishing  a  tri- 
une government  in  the  islands.     When,  in  1893, 


Samoa  85 

the  natives  engaged  in  civil  war,  the  United  Samoa,  1893. 
States  again  authorized  a  vessel  of  our  navy  to 
take  part  in  a  joint  military  demonstration.  The 
Treaty  of  1899,  by  which  the  United  States  was 
assured  the  complete  sovereignty  of  a  part  of 
the  group,  put  an  end  to  these  landings  or  show 
of  force  in  neutral  territory. 

Several  opportunities  have  arisen  in  the  last 
thirty  years  for  interventions   in    Europe,  but 
none  of  them  have  been  used.     The  Cretans,  in  Crete,  1867. 
1867,  drew  on  American  sympathies ;  the  trouble  Roumania. 
of  Roumania  interested  us  in  1872;  some  per-  ^^^*" 
sons  desired  to  intervene  in  behalf  of  the  Arme-  Armenia, 
nians  in   1895,  and  in  behalf  of  the  Greeks  in   ^^^" 
1896,  but  the  only  effect  was  to  send  warships  Greece, 
into  Turkish  waters.     The  only  Asiatic  expedi-  ^^' 
tions  up  to  1900  were  an  armed  intervention  in 
Korea  in  1871,  and  a  landing  at  Tien  Tsin  in  the  Korea, 
same  year  to  protect  refugees  from  a  massacre.   ^^^*" 
All   these   hints  and    sympathies  are  insignifi- 
cant in  comparison  with  the  actual  occupation 
of  the  Philippines  in   1898,  just  as  all  recent 
American  interventions  yield  in  importance  to 
the  powerful  expeditions  to  Cuba    and    Porto 
Rico,  and  the  recent  dramatic  joint  march  from 
the  coast  to  Pekin,  the  most  striking  episode  in 
our  Asiatic  relations. 

Many  of  the  incidents  which  have  just  been  21.  Review 
described  have  no  great  significance  in  them-  ^^^^ 
selves,  but  they  enable  us  to  judge  of  the  pur- 


86        Military  Expeditions 

poses  and  methods  of  armed  interventions  dur- 
ing the  last  century  and  a  quarter,  and  to  make 
some  generalizations  as  to  causes,  geographical 
distribution,  methods,  and  results. 

The  most  frequent  occasion  for  the  exercise 
of  military  force  has,  of  course,  been  the  desire 
to  take  the  territory  or  damage  the  defences  of 
a  public  enemy:  Canada  in  1775  and  1812, 
Tripoli  in  1804,  California  in  1846,  and  the 
Philippines  in  1898,  are  sufficient  examples. 
In  times  of  peace  a  predisposing  cause  for 
intervention  is  the  wish  to  cut  the  Gordian  knot 
of  territorial  disputes,  as  in  the  occupation  of 
West  Florida  in  18 13,  and  of  the  Rio  Grande  in 
1846.  Border  difficulties  and  Indian  troubles 
account  for  at  least  a  third  of  all  the  inter- 
ventions :  such  are  Jackson's  Seminole  War  of 
18 18,  and  the  Mexican  border  raids  from  1874 
to  1882.  The  protection  of  Americans  and 
their  property  has  given  rise  to  most  of  the 
interventions  in  other  than  border  countries,  as 
in  the  Falklands  in  1831,  in  Japan  in  1863,  and 
in  China  in  1900.  The  special  question  of  the 
Isthmus  has  led  to  several  such  episodes  as  the 
bombardment  of  Grey  town  in  1854.  For  an- 
other group  of  interventions  the  only  explana- 
tion is  the  desire  of  administrations  or  of  our 
ministers  or  consuls  to  increase  the  area  and 
prestige  of  the  Union,  as  in  the  cases  of  Samoa 
and  Hawaii. 


Occasions  87 

In  general,  interventions  are  a  remedy  for  weak 
trouble  with  feeble  powers,  though  there  have 
been  repeated  expeditions  into  British  territory 
or  against  British  claims.  Spain  and  Mexico, 
as  weak  and  rather  disorderly  near  neighbors, 
have  come  in  for  nearly  thirty  interventions, 
and  the  Isthmus  states  for  six  or  eight  more. 
Samoa  has  been  the  object  of  controversy'  at 
least  four  times ;  Hawaii,  four  times ;  Japan  and 
China,  six  or  eight  times ;  Paraguay,  twice;  Chile, 
three  times;  the  eastern  coasts  of  Asia,  seven 
or  eight  times.  The  only  interventions  in  or 
near  European  countries  have  been  the  land- 
ing of  Paul  Jones  in  England  in  1778;  the 
Barbary  wars ;  and  the  difficulty  with  Austria 
in  1853. 

Expeditions  into  bordering  countries  have  Support  of 
been  made  by  land  forces,  supported  in  many  ^  °^^^^' 
cases  by  the  navy,  as  on  Lake  Erie  in  18 13,  and 
in  the  Gulf  and  the  Pacific  in  1846.  In  distant 
countries  and  their  seaports,  the  principal  work 
has  fallen  on  the  navy;  except  in  the  Mexican 
War,  there  had  never  been  an  organized  auxiliary 
landing  force  of  soldiers  before  the  expeditions 
to  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  and  Manila. 

Most  of  the  interventions  have  been  made 
under  the  orders  of  the  President,  or  his  author- 
ized subordinates,  on  the  general  principle  of 
the  duty  of  the  Executive  to  protect  American 
citizens   and    their   property   everywhere ;    but 


88         Military  Expeditions 


Treatment  of 

occupied 

Countries. 


Overieaious  zealous  consuls  and  ministers  have  often  gone 
nauw.^**'  beyond  their  instructions,  as  in  Hawaii  in  185 1, 
and  in  Samoa  in  1886;  and  naval  officers  have 
sometimes  been  as  injudicious  as  was  Commo- 
dore Jones  in  the  year  1842, 
Declarations.  The  expeditions  of  1775-1779,  1803-1804, 
1 8 12-18 14,  and  1846  were  made  under  formal 
declarations  of  war ;  and  Congress  has  also  re- 
peatedly given  special  authority  for  the  use  of 
force;  this  was  the  case  in  the  Florida  acts 
of  1811-1813,  the  expedition  to  Paraguay  in 
1 858-1 859,  and  the  Cuban  intervention  of  1898. 
A  question  most  interesting  in  the  present 
crisis  is,  What  has  been  the  nature  of  the  author- 
ity exercised  by  commanders  of  expeditions  over 
the  people  of  the  occupied  countries }  Very 
few  of  them  carried  any  specific  orders ;  the  ex- 
ceptions are  Arnold  and  his  colleagues  in  Can- 
ada (1775- 1 776),  Claiborne  in  West  Florida 
(181 1 ),  Jackson  in  East  Florida  (182 1),  Kearny 
in  California  (1846),  and  the  consuls  in  Samoa. 
Several  commanders  seem  to  have  usurped 
civil  powers,  as  General  Rogers  Clark  in  the 
Northwest,  Dearborn  in  Canada,  Fremont  in 
California,  and  Scott  in  Mexico.  In  one  in- 
stance only,  that  of  Quebec  in  1775,  has  a 
committee  of  Congress  gone  out  to  super- 
vise the  military  and  civil  operations,  though 
there  was  something  very  like  it  in  our  Civil 
War. 


Temporary  Governments      89 

In  the  cases  where  territory  has  been  held  for  Temporary 
a  time  long  enough  to  require  any  civil  govern-  Govern- 
ment, the  commanders  have  usually  proclaimed 
the  temporary  or  permanent  sovereignty  of  the 
United  States ;  they  have  also  deposed  and  ap- 
pointed civil  officials,  and  have  even  set  up  tem- 
porary revenue  systems.  In  a  few  instances, — 
as  Quebec  in  1775,  Vincennes  in  1779,  Derne  in 
1804,  Texas  in  1836,  Cahfornia  in  1846,  New 
Mexico  in  1846,  Hawaii  in  1851  and  1893,  Samoa  insurgents, 
in  1886,  Cuba,  Porto  Rico,  and  the  Philippines  in 
1898,  —  the  United  States  has  sought  to  come 
into  relations  with  local  insurgents,  and  has  prom- 
ised them  protection,  and  sometimes  incorpora- 
tion into  the  Union.  In  not  one  of  these  cases, 
except  Texas,  have  the  natives  really  rallied  to 
the  aid  of  the  invading  troops,  or  taken  any  im- 
portant independent  part  in  military  operations. 

The  reasons  which  brought  about  the  earlier  causes, 
interventions  have  now  almost  ceased  to  exist: 
our  boundaries  are  established,  our  flag  is 
respected,  the  most  tempting  near-by  territory 
has  been  gained,  the  Isthmus  question  no  longer 
requires  much  interference,  and  commerce  is 
opened  up  all  over  the  world.  But  as  fast  as 
one  set  of  causes  ceases  to  be  effective,  another 
arises.  The  necessity  of  deaUng  impressively 
with  imperfectly  civilized  nations  grows  stronger 
as  we  come  in  contact  with  more  of  them,  for  to 
such  people  intervention  is  a  swift  and  certain 


go        Military  Expeditions 

argument  sure  to  be  remembered.  The  appetite 
for  annexation  of  foreign  territory  is  hard  to 
assuage;  and  interventions  having  annexations 
in  view  are  war,  and  breed  wars.  Interventions 
in  conjunction  with  other  powers  have  so  far 
been  little  known  to  our  system  —  our  experience 
in  Samoa  does  not  seem  to  commend  joint  ad- 
ministration of  colonies ;  and  the  invasion  of 
China  has  brought  with  it  very  alarming 
difficulties. 

Looking  back  over  the  course  of  military  inter- 
ventions since  the  United  States  became  a  nation, 
Conclusions,  three  conclusions  stand  out  clearly.  The  first  is 
the  remarkable  success  of  all  the  serious  inter- 
ventions and  expeditions  authorized  by  the 
federal  government,  with  the  single  exception  of 
the  invasions  of  Canada.  The  second  is  the 
increase  of  territory  and  prestige  which  the  ex- 
peditions have  brought  to  the  nation,  even  when 
unrighteously  undertaken.  The  third  is  the  free 
hand  which  the  United  States  has  so  far  enjoyed 
in  entering  either  American,  Pacific,  or  Oriental 
territory.  But  this  last  favorable  condition  has 
come  to  an  end ;  henceforth,  whenever  we  send 
our  ships  and  troops  far  outside  of  America,  we 
must  confront  a  highly  organized  system  of 
jealous  foreign  powers ;  and  we  must  expect  to 
find  that  no  nation  can  share  in  the  mastery  of 
other  hemispheres,  and  at  the  same  time  be  sole 
master  in  its  own  hemisphere. 


Ill 

BOUNDARY    CONTROVERSIES    AND 

COMMISSIONS   IN   THE   UNITED 

STATES 

In  the  excitement  over  the  territorial  coiitro-  22.  Extent 
versy  with  regard  to  Venezuela  in  1895,  people  coi^ovw^ 
supposed  that  it  was  the  most  important  and  sies. 
most  difficult  foreign  quesi:ion  in  which  the 
United  States  had  been  inv'olved,  instead  of  one 
of  the  lesser  American  boundary  controversies 
during  the  last  hundred  years.  Of  the  five 
thousand  miles  of  our  land  frontier,  there  is  not 
a  foot  which  has  not  been  the  subject  of  dispute, 
of  negotiation,  of  treaty,  and  of  subsequent  in- 
vestigation by  commissioners ;  upon  two  thou- 
sand miles  of  frontier  there  have  been  mutual 
threats  of  war ;  one  thousand  miles  the  United 
States  gained  by  right  of  conquest.  To  sum  up 
in  a  sentence  our  national  boundary  history  up 
to  1900,  it  includes  eighteen  seriously  contested 
areas,  four  military  seizures,  two  wars,  five  other 
serious  crises  in  which  war  was  threatened, 
twenty-seven  treaties,  three  arbitrations,  a  dozen 
commissions,  besides  uncounted  despatches, 
reports  and  resolutions,  bills,  and  acts  of  Con- 
91 


92       Boundary  Controversies 


Dividing  the 
Globe. 


Dividing 
America. 


gress.  Periods  of  "  storm  and  stress,"  much 
more  alarming  than  any  in  the  present  genera- 
tion, have  many  times  come  upon  us ;  and  the 
controversies  have  been  settled  quietly  and  satis- 
factorily. 

The  adjustment  of  line  fences  is  always  a  trial 
of  the  good  temper  of  neighbors  ;  and  continents 
are  as  hard  to  divide  peacefully  as  bottom  lands 
or  cattle  ranges.  Within  twenty  years  we  have 
seen  the  spider  web  of  boundary  lines  creeping 
over  the  face  of  Africa;  England,  Germany, 
France,  Spain,  Italy,  Portugal,  and  the  Belgians 
have  been  exploring,  negotiating,  and  threaten- 
ing over  the  interior  of  the  Dark  Continent. 
Now  a  similar  but  more  fateful  controversy  is 
pending  with  regard  to  Eastern  Asia.  The  pro- 
cess of  dividing  Africa  has  been  genial  compared 
with  the  struggle  for  the  possession  of  North 
America  and  the  West  Indies.  For  more  than 
two  centuries  there  strove  against  each  other 
Spaniard,  Englishman,  Frenchman,  Dutchman, 
and  Swede.  Nor  were  these  paper  controversies : 
in  the  intercolonial  wars,  thousands  of  brave  men 
gave  their  lives  in  the  endeavor  to  gain  or  to 
defend  territory.  Just  as  the  continent  and  most 
of  the  islands  by  the  treaty  of  1763  seemed 
comfortably  divided  between  England  and  Spain, 
the  Revolutionary  War  came  on ;  and  at  its  close 
the  United  States  of  America  stood  forth  as  the 
youngest  and  most  vigorous   North  American 


Revolution  93 

power.  The  territorial  history  of  the  continent 
since  that  time  has  been  for  the  most  part  the 
story  of  the  advancement  of  the  boundaries  of 
the  United  States,  till  it  has  occupied  almost  all 
that  is  valuable  out  of  the  former  British,  French, 
and  Spanish  territory  in  North  America.  Few 
empires  in  the  world  exceed  it  in  area ;  and  no 
country  has  shown  itself  better  able  to  defend 
its  just  territorial  rights. 

In  a  certain  sense  the  Revolution  was  itself  a  33.  Revoio- 
boundary    controversy ;    it    involved    the   most  ^^^j 
serious  difference  of  opinion  as  to  how  far  British  Federal 
jurisdiction  extended  ;  the  Americans  seized  the  ^^^ll' 
northwest  region,  and  the  British  seized  New  1778-1798- 
York  City.    In  the  negotiations  of  1782  bounda- 
ries were  the  most  difficult  questions  to  adjust, 
and  were,  in  the  end,  confusingly  defined.     It 
was  therefore  fortunate  that  the  founders  of  the 
republic  were  familiar   with   boundary   contro-  colonial 
versies  in  the  colonies.     George  Washington,  in  Contro- 

°  versies. 

1753,  had  been  a  commissioner  to  warn  the 
French  off  the  Virginia  Unes.  The  jog  in  the 
line  between  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  marks  a 
spot  where  the  commissioners  of  North  Carolina 
discovered  that  their  line  was  being  deflected  far 
to  the  north  of  west.  The  present  western 
boundary  of  Connecticut  is  a  monument  to  the 
Dutch  and  Yankees  who  agreed  on  it  in  1650. 
The  colonist  knew  the  frontiersman's  advance 
into  disputed  territory,  the  surveyor's  chain,  the 


94       Boundary  Controversies 

diplomat's  pen,  and  the  commissioners*  confer- 
ence. Many  of  the  internal  boundary  questions 
have  extended  into  the  present  century,  as  in  the 
long-drawn  disputes  between  Rhode  Island  and 
Massachusetts,  and  the  "Pea  Patch"  controversy 
^  in  Delaware  Bay. 

Northern  Our  diplomats  were,  therefore,  quite  at  home 

Boundary.      -^^  ^j^^  g^^^^j  ^f   difficulties   left  by  the  treaty 

of  peace  of  1783,  and  the  later  rival  claims 
to  Oregon.  Yet,  notwithstanding  their  experi- 
ence, patience,  and  sense  of  the  gravity  of  the 
territorial  problems,  it  was  almost  ninety  years 
before  the  whole  of  the  northern  line  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  was  agreed  upon,  sur- 
veyed, and  marked.  A  nation  which  has  peace- 
fully overcome  the  difficulties  of  that  long  and 
anxious  negotiation  need  not  fear  any  future 
controversy.  The  difficulties  long  seemed  almost 
insurmountable :  the  northern  neighbor  was  Eng- 
land, a  power  not  disposed  to  exaggerate  the 
bounds  of  her  late  dependencies ;  the  lines  laid 
down  in  the  treaties  could  not  possibly  be  lo- 
cated on  the  actual  face  of  the  country ;  much 
of  the  boundary  lay  in  a  wild  region  which 
would  have  been  a  "no  man's  land,"  but  for 
the  rival  claimants ;  some  long-extended  boun- 
dary lines  were  river  channels  studded  with 
desirable  islands ;  and  Oregon  was  founded  in 
a  wilderness  where  it  was  "first  come,  first 
served." 


Post-Revolutionary  95 

The  first  step  was  to  get  possession  of  our 
unquestioned  territory;  and  that  took  thirteen 
years.  England  long  continued  to  maintain 
posts  within  the  acknowledged  boundary  of  the  Posts, 
United  States,  and  even  laid  hands  upon  an  ^783-1796. 
official  of  the  United  States  who  had  strayed 
too  near  their  fort  at  Buffalo,  and  escorted 
him  back  a  hundred  miles  toward  his  home. 
In  1794  this  was  one  of  the  grievances  which 
nearly  led  to  war;  Washington,  whom  no  one 
will  accuse  of  lack  of  courage,  insisted  that  we 
should  attempt  to  gain  our  point  by  negotiation, 
and  Jay's  diplomacy  won  a  bloodless  victory; 
for,  in  1796,  in  accordance  with  the  Jay  treaty 
of  1794,  British  garrisons  were  withdrawn  from 
all  the  territory  of  the  United  States  where  the 
boundary  line  was  not  a  subject  of  international 
dispute. 

In  the  same  Jay  treaty  progress  was  made  24.  Adjast- 
toward  the  second  great  step,  —  the  settling  of  ™ento*ti»o 
the  boundary  from  the  eastern  coast  to  the  Lake  dary,  1814- 
of  the  Woods,  —  and  the  policy  of  establishing  *^' 
joint  commissions   was  then  begun.     Six  suclV;,. 
bodies   were   created   at   different  times,  froh(^,'   . 
1794  to  1842,  of  which  two  broke  up  on  account 
of  disagreements. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  upon  that  part  of 
the  boundary  which  runs  from  the  head  of  the 
Connecticut  River  to  the  Lake  of  the  Woods, 
for  it  was  settled  piecemeal,  without  any  serious 


96       Boundary  Controversies 


Point  of 
Disagree- 
ment 


Arbitration, 
1827-1831. 


jangling;  the  difficult  questions  were  to  de- 
termine what  was  meant  by  "the  northwest 
angle  of  Nova  Scotia,"  and  "  the  Highlands 
which  divide  those  rivers  that  empty  themselves 
into  the  River  St.  Lawrence  from  those  which 
fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean."  When  Maine 
was  admitted  into  the  Union  in  1820,  that  state 
became  an  interested  party  to  the  controversy. 
While  diplomats  wrangled,  the  hardy  American 
and  British  settlers  began  to  appear  in  the  dis- 
puted belt,  and  to  warn  each  other  away. 

Some  of  the  earlier  commissions  had  been 
composed  of  one  person  appointed  by  each 
power,  with  a  third  chosen  by  lot,  a  system 
which  might  make  the  final  decision  a  matter  of 
tossing  a  coin;  in  the  Treaty  of  18 14  provision 
had  been  made  for  referring  the  matter  to  an 
arbitrator,  if  the  commissioners  disagreed.  The 
expected  came  to  pass :  both  parties  maintained 
a  right  to  twelve  thousand  square  miles  of  dis- 
puted territory.  The  first  boundary  arbitration 
in  the  history  of  the  United  States  was  therefore, 
in  1827,  brought  to  bear  upon  the  controversy, 
when  the  case  was  submitted  to  the  king  of  the 
Netherlands ;  in  183 1  he  reported  that  the  word- 
ing of  the  treaty  could  not  be  applied  to  the 
country,  and  he  therefore  indicated  a  compro- 
mise line.  This  the  United  States  declined  to 
accept  as  not  being  a  "  decision  "  in  the  sense 
of  the  agreement. 


Maine  97 

Treaties,  commissioners,  and  arbitration  all 
having  failed,  the  country  was  confronted  by 
a  serious  and  increasing  danger  of  war.  Maine  Belligerent 
was  belligerent  and  raised  a  force  of  men.  In  "°'^' 
1833  Secretary  Edward  Livingston  unsuccess- 
fully suggested  a  device  which  bore  some  re- 
semblance to  that  created  in  1896  to  examine 
the  Venezuelan  question  :  "  a  commission  of  some 
of  the  most  skilful  men  in  Europe,  selected  by 
a  friendly  sovereign,  and  sent  to  view  and  survey 
the  disputed  territory,  attended  by  agents  ap- 
pointed by  the  parties."  Fortunately,  when  the 
matter  neared  a  crisis  in  1842,  Daniel  Webster  Ashburton 
was  Secretary  of  State,  and  concluded  a  treaty  Treaty. 
by  which  the  territory  was  divided  nearly  on 
the  line  of  the  rejected  arbitration.  Details 
were  amicably  settled  by  another  joint  com- 
mission, and  thus,  after  forty-nine  years  of  argu- 
ment, was  peacefully  and  honorably  quieted  one 
of  the  most  obstinate  international  disputes  in 
our  history. 

With  the  splendid  Louisiana  purchase  of  1803,  25.  Adjost- 
was    annexed    another    series   of    troublesome  °»entofthe 

,  ,  .  ,Tr  1        1  •  Louisiana 

boundary  questions.  We  took  the  provmce  Boundary, 
from  France  "  with  the  same  extent  it  now  has  ^803-1828. 
in  the  hands  of  France  and  that  it  had  when 
Spain  possessed  it."  Unfortunately  these  two 
definitions  were  contrary  to  each  other,  and 
Napoleon,  in  the  course  of  his  negotiations, 
instructed  his  minister  that,  if  there  were  not 


98       Boundary  Controversies 


West 
Florida. 


Occupation, 
1810-1819. 


already  an  obscurity  in  the  treaty,  one  should 
be  inserted.  The  difficulty  was  that  the  order 
of  Napoleon  to  his  subordinates  to  take  Texas 
and  leave  West  Florida  to  Spain  was  never 
made  known  to  the  United  States;  hence  our 
government  eventually  gave  up  Texas  but  in- 
sisted on  West  Florida,  and  this  geographical 
mistake  at  once  led  to  a  new  and  troublesome 
boundary  quarrel  with  Spain.  That  power  had, 
from  1782  till  the  Treaty  of  1795,  steadfastly 
refused  to  admit  that  northern  West  Florida, 
above  the  thirty-first  parallel  —  now  central  Mis- 
sissippi and  Alabama  —  was  rightfully  a  part 
of  the  United  States ;  and  again  warmly  pro- 
tested in  behalf  of  the  southern  or  coast  strip 
when,  as  Henry  Adams  says,  "  Livingston 
discovered  that  France  had  actually  bought 
West  Florida  without  knowing  it,  and  had  sold 
it  to  the  United  States  without  being  paid  for  it." 
Negotiations  for  the  first  time  proved  too  slow : 
after  seven  years  the  United  States  occupied 
the  disputed  territory  by  force  of  arms,  and 
later  twice  occupied  parts  of  East  Florida,  which 
was  undoubted  Spanish  territory.  Seeing  the 
impossibility  of  making  head  against  the  de- 
termined republic,  Spain,  by  the  Treaty  of  18 19, 
gave  up  the  Floridas  but  retained  Texas.  Not- 
withstanding the  tension  of  nearly  twenty  years, 
there  was  never  any  serious  danger  of  war 
between  the  two  countries,  and  West  Florida 


West  Florida  99 

might  have  been   annexed  eventually  without 
even  the  show  of  violence. 

Various  commissions  were  appointed  to  run  26.  Adjust- 
the  lines  laid  down  in  the  Spanish  Treaty  of  Oregon 
1 8 19,  and  the  corresponding  Mexican  boundary  Boundary, 
Treaty  of  1828  ;  but  a  new  and  serious  boundary 
question  had  meanwhile  arisen  in  Oregon.  Here 
there  was  no  question  of  the  interpretation  of 
treaties,  for  there  were  none ;  nor  of  a  commis- 
sion to  run  boundary  lines,  for  Oregon  was  the 
indefinite  region  west  of  the  Rocky  Mountains. 
The  controversy  involved  the  same  questions  as 
those  at  the  bottom  of  the  Venezuelan  dispute : 
the  time  of  first  discovery,  the  effect  of  prior 
exploration,  the  weight  to  be  given  to  occupa- 
tion by  trading  companies,  the  fights  6i  perma- 
nent settlers.  As  in  the  disputed  belt  between 
Guiana  and  Venezuela,  the  two  parties  for  many 
years  maintained  at  least  some  show  of  authority. 
Perhaps,  however,  the  controversy  might  better 
be  compared  to  that  now  going  on  in  Central 
Africa.  Four  powers  —  Spain,  by  ancient  dis- 
covery ;  Russia,  by  Alaskan  settlements,  begin-  Russian 
ning  in  1775;  England  and  the  United  States,  *""** 
on  more  serious  grounds  —  all  laid  claim,  at  the 
same  time,  to  the  whole  or  part  of  Oregon. 
By  skilful  negotiation  the  United  States  ex- 
tinguished the  Spanish  claim  in  18 19.  The 
Monroe  doctrine  of  1823  was  in  considerable 
part  inspired  by  a  purpose  to  shake  off  Russia, 


loo     Boundary  Controversies 


Oregon  ap- 
preciated. 


Arbitration 
and  Com- 
promise. 


and  John  Quincy  Adams  warned  the  Russian 
ambassador  that  "we  should  contest  the  right 
of  Russia  to  any  territorial  establishment  on  this 
continent."  The  next  year  Russia,  by  treaty, 
withdrew  all  claims  south  of  54®  40'.  England 
was  thus  the  only  rival  left ;  and  with  England 
in  181 8  and  again  in  1827  the  United  States 
entered  into  an  agreement  not  likely  to  be 
repeated  in  future  with  any  power :  the  two 
nations  were  to  have  equal  rights  in  the  dis- 
puted territory,  subject  to  later  adjustment. 

After  1840,  however,  the  value  of  the  country 
became  more  apparent,  easy  land  communica- 
tion was  opened  up,  and  there  were  repeated 
threats  of  war.  The  tract  in  dispute  was  vastly 
more  important  than  either  West  Florida  or 
northern  Maine;  the  people  of  both  countries 
were  much  excited  and  equally  sure  of  the  jus- 
tice of  their  claims.  In  1844  the  cry  of  "fifty- 
four  forty  or  fight "  was  one  of  the  issues  of 
the  presidential  election ;  and  Polk,  in  his  in- 
augural address  of  March,  1845,  declared  the 
claim  of  the  United  States  to  be  "clear  and 
unquestionable."  As  soon  as  Congress  met  in 
December,  1845,  threatening  resolutions  were 
reported  by  the  Senate  Committee  of  Foreign 
Affairs. 

The  next  step  was  in  curious  contradiction  to 
the  present  attitude  of  the  two  powers  toward 
arbitration.     Great  Britain  proposed  an  arbitra- 


Oregon  loi 

tion  on  a  question  of  the  same  kind  as  that 
which  she  at  first  declined  with  Venezuela; 
President  Polk  refused  it  on  the  ground  "that 
he  does  not  believe  the  territorial  rights  of  this 
nation  to  be  a  proper  subject  for  arbitration." 
Stocks  fell ;  insurance  rose ;  the  President  asked 
for  more  troops  and  ships ; .  a  match  would  have 
set  off  the  powder  irjagnzine.  But  Polk  did  not 
drop  the  match;  the  House  and  Senate  began 
in  belligerent  tones  but  grew  steadily  milder; 
and  six  months  after  refusing,any  concession, 
Polk  agreed  to  the  present  boundary  as  a  com- 
promise line.  The  Treaty  of  1846  put  an  end  to  Treaty  of 
this  alarming  controversy  after  more  than  forty  ^^'*^" 
years  of  agitation.  The  commission  disagreed 
upon  the  San  Juan  boundary ;  but  that  too  was 
peaceably  settled  by  arbitration  in  1872.  From  Arbitration 
the  discovery  of  the  Columbia  in  1 792,  ninety  °^  ^^^^" 
years  passed  before  the  whole  matter  was  ad- 
justed. If  this  episode  in  the  territorial  history 
of  the  United  States  proves  anything,  it  is  that 
the  most  complicated  boundary  quarrels  may  be 
harmonized  by  patience  and  with  honor. 

All  the  world  knows  that  Polk's  sudden  change 
of  poHcy  was  not  due  to  timidity  nor  to  a  lack 
of  willingness  to  take  territory.  At  the  end  of 
the  war  in  1848  a  new  frontier  was  drawn  from 
the  Rio  Grande  to  the  Pacific.  As  in  several 
previous  cases,  the  commissioners  appointed  to 
run  the  boundary  line  disagreed,  and  a  second 


102     Boundary  Controversies 

treaty  was  necessary  in  1853  to  complete  the 
boundary.     As  late  as  1885  it  was  found  neces- 
sary to  constitute  a  new  boundary  commission 
to  rediscover  the  line  laid  down  by  this  treaty. 
27.  Alaskan       The  next  annexation  was  that  of  Alaska  in 
8k(8^i8fr7-      "^^^T-     Whatever  the  commercial  advantages  of 
1900.  this  transaction,  it  has  brought  with  it  two  vexa- 

tious territorial  disputes.  One  of  them  —  the 
question  of  jurisdiction  over  seal  fisheries  —  was 
settled  peacefully  by  the  Paris  arbitration  of 
1893,  which  has  required  a  second  arbitration 
to  arrange  its  details.  The  other  —  the  boun- 
dary through  the  mountains  between  Alaska 
and  Canada  —  has  passed  through  the  hands  of 
one  commission,  and  in  1900  is  still  pending 
as  a  vexatious  controversy.  It  is  worth  while 
to  notice  that  the  possession  of  gold  fields, 
which  was  supposed  to  be  an  underlying  factor 
in  the  Venezuelan  affair,  complicates  also  the 
Alaskan  boundary  dispute ;  and  the  same  ques- 
tion would  eventually  have  put  California  into 
much  the  present  position  of  the  Transvaal,  had 
not  California  been  annexed  before  the  yellow 
discovery. 

The  discovery  of  gold  in  the  Klondike  be- 
gun in  1896  revived  a  long-standing  boun- 
dary trouble.  The  northern  part  of  the  line 
between  the  Dominion  of  Canada  and  Alaska 
is  fortunately  a  meridian  which  can  be  exactly 
located  by  survey,  and  leaves  the  upper  creeks 


Alaska  103 

of  the  Yukon  undoubtedly  on  the  Canadian 
side.  Farther  south,  the  line  of  1825  between 
Russia  and  England  follows  parallel  to  a  very 
irregular  and  rugged  coast,  or  along  lines  of 
mountains  which  do  not  exist.  The  plain  con- 
struction of  the  treaty  gives  to  the  United  States 
a  strip  east  of  tide  water  all  the  way  westward 
from  54°  40' ;  but  a  harbor  would  be  so  useful 
to  Canada  that  claims  have  been  made  in  behalf 
of  Great  Britain,  and  arbitration  has  been  sug- 
gested. 

Up  to  thirty  years  ago  the  United  States  had  28.  The 
seldom  taken  any  part  in  the  boundary  contro-  ^^^ 
versies  of  other  nations.     We  have  sometimes  Arbiter  for 
offered  our  good  offices,  as  in  the  case  of  Peru  Jjations 
in  1 88 1 ;  or  have  acted  as  arbitrators,  as  in  the 
Bulama  Island  dispute  between   England  and 
Portugal  in  1870;  but  have  had  little  occasion 
to  make  our  influence  felt  in  territorial  matters 
beyond  our  own  limits.     When  San  Salvador  in 
1822  and  Yucatan  in  1848  modestly  suggested 
marriage    to     Uncle     Sam,     he    declined    it. 
Toward  Cuba  there  has  been  something  more 
than   Platonic   friendship   ever  since  Jefferson 
pointed  out  its  value  in  1807,  and  according  to 
the  historian  Rhodes  it  would  have  been  forci- 
bly   annexed    in     1854    but    for    the    Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill,  which  aroused  the  North  against 
further   extension   of   slave   territory.     Seward 
thought  the  St.  Thomas  treaty  would  have  been 


I04     Boundary  Controversies 

ratified  in  1868  if  the  Danes  had  been  ready. 
San  Domingo  was  all  but  annexed  in  1871. 
But  these  annexations  would  not  have  brought 
about  boundary  quarrels,  for  it  is  a  happy  trait 
of  islands  that  they  have  frontiers  indubitably 
surveyed  by  nature. 
Foreign  About   1870   Secretary   Fish  began  to  take 

de*^recated.  ground  which  is  perhaps  the  basis  of  Mr, 
Olney's  contentions  in  his  famous  despatch  of 
'  July,  1895,  to  Lord  Salisbury.^  Mr.  Fish  spoke 
of  the  time  when  "  by  the  voluntary  departure 
of  European  governments  from  this  continent 
and  the  adjacent  islands,  America  shall  be 
wholly  American."  Mr.  Blaine,  in  1881,  ad- 
vanced a  few  steps  by  asserting  the  right  of  the 
United  States  to  interfere  if  Chile  should  pare 
too  much  territory  from  the  flank  of  Peru. 
Secretary  Olney  has  set  forth  the  right  of  the 
United  States,  as  the  "sovereign"  of  America, 
to  be  consulted  on  boundaries  between  Euro- 
pean colonies  and  other  American  states.  The 
practical  acceptance  of  this  claim  by  England 
makes  it  nearly  certain  that  the  doctrine,  how- 
ever wanting  in  precedents,  will  have  a  further 
application  in  the  future. 

In  the  annexation  of  the  Philippines  in  1899 
the  archipelago  was  bounded  by  fixed  geometri- 
cal lines  ;  and  it  was  found  that  the  two  islands 
of  Cibitu  and  Cagayan  lay  outside.     As  Spain 

^  See  Chapter  vii.  below. 


Lessons  105 

very  properly  refused  to  give  them  up  without 
a  separate  negotiation,  the  United  States  in  1900 
purchased  them  from  the  Spanish  government. 

From  this  brief  sketch  of  our  boundary  rela-  39.  Lesson 
tions,  it  is  clear  that  territorial  quarrels  are  controver- 
among  the  most  dangerous  which  set  civilized  ■***• 
nations  at  enmity  with  each  other.  The  desire 
for  the  advantage  and  prestige  of  more  territory 
can  be  felt  by  the  humblest  voter ;  the  humilia- 
tion of  giving  up  a  claim  once  formulated  by 
the  government  is  keen  throughout  any  land; 
actually  to  lose  unquestioned  territory  leaves 
the  seeds  of  such  bitterness  as  that  in  France 
over  Alsace-Lorraine.  To  settle  such  contro- 
versies honorably  requires  a  moderation  of 
judgment,  a  knowledge  of  diplomacy,  and  a 
skill  as  to  the  technical  details  of  boundaries 
and  surveys,  not  always  to  be  found  even 
among  leaders.  All  honor,  therefore,  to  the 
wise  American  statesmen  who  have  steered  the 
nation  through  all  such  perils,  and  who  have 
shown  what  may  be  done  for  one's  country  by  the 
homely  virtues  of  patience  and  forbearance  ! 

So  far  as  our  present  boundaries  are  con- 
cerned, nearly  every  mile  is  now  settled  and 
staked  ;  and  it  is  well,  for  the  nation  will  never 
again  wait  ninety,  or  fifty,  or  five  years  for  the 
settlement  of  so  serious  a  question  as  the  Maine 
or  Oregon  boundaries.  But  since  we  are  ap- 
parently to  take  some  responsibility  for  other 


io6     Boundary  Controversies 


Methods  of 

friendly 

Adjustment. 


lands,  it  may  be  well  to  consider,  in  the  light  of 
our  own  history,  how  complicated  boundary 
controversies  may  best  be  adjusted. 

First  should  come  a  distinct  statement  of 
claims,  made  as  early  as  possible,  so  that  the 
rival's  lines  may  not  advance;  such  was  our 
course  in  1803.  Next  come  negotiations  and 
an  attempt  to  gain  territorial  advantages  by 
accepting  something  else  desired  by  the  other 
party.  Thus,  in  1842,  Webster  consented  to  an 
extradition  clause  in  a  boundary  treaty.  If  the 
case  be  serious  enough,  there  is  ground  for  a 
formal  remonstrance  like  that  of  Jay  in  1794. 
The  good  offices  of  friendly  neighbors  may  be 
accepted,  such  as  the  United  States  has  exer- 
cised in  behalf  of  Venezuela.  The  dispute 
ought  then  to  be  terminated  by  a  treaty,  as  was 
the  Oregon  question.  Failing  that,  arbitration 
is  the  best  step,  and  so  the  United  States  found 
it  in  the  San  Juan  arbitration  of  1872.  Com- 
missions commonly  come  in  to  carry  out  details 
of  treaties  or  arbitrations  after  they  are  con- 
cluded, and  they  are  subject  to  disarrangement 
by  the  failure  of  the  commissioners  to  agree. 
In  a  few  cases  the  United  States  has  sent  out 
commissions  of  inquiry  before  taking  diplomatic 
action;  such  were  the  commissions  of  18 16,  to 
South  America,  and  of  1849,  to  Austria.  The 
Venezuelan  commission  of  1896  is  the  first  ex- 
ample of  such  a  practice  in  boundary  disputes. 


Principles  107 

What  shall  we  do  when  the  other  party  will  PaUencc 
not  listen  to  reason  or  justice,  and  insists  upon 
a  claim  which  we  cannot  accept  for  ourselves  or 
our  neighbors  ?  The  first  requisite  is  patience. 
A  great  nation,  whose  importance  and  powers 
of  defence  can  be  questioned  by  nobody,  can 
afford  to  let  a  new  issue  simmer  six  months  or 
even  a  year.  The  use  of  carefully  chosen  dip- 
lomatic language  is  another  soothing  practice. 
Seward  might  have  brought  on  war  with 
France  by  a  single  dictatorial  despatch  in  1865; 
but  he  could  not  have  accomplished  more  than 
by  his  polite  conviction  that  it  was  impossible 
that  the  French  could  desire  to  remain  in 
Mexico.  A  power  which  is  "  in  the  market " 
for  more  territory  —  as  England  has  long  been 
—  has  a  hundred  more  opportunities  to  get  into 
disputes  than  a  power  like  the  United  States, 
which  foresees  no  further  conquests.  The 
simple  historical  fact  is,  that  the  United  States 
has  never  needed  force  to  settle  boundary 
disputes ;  for  even  West  Florida,  California, 
and  New  Mexico  would  have  eventually  come 
peacefully  into  the  Union.  If  the  United 
States  has  so  far  honorably  settled  its  difficult 
boundary  questions  without  war  or  the  pressure 
of  probable  war,  is  there  need  of  a  belligerent 
spirit  when  we  become  interested  in  the  similar 
controversies  of  our  neighbors  ? 


IV 

A  CENTURY  OF   CUBAN   DIPLOMACY 
1795-1895 

30.  What  is  "  Whether  the  West  Indies  are  naturally 
parts  of  the  North  American  continent  is  a 
question  of  curious  speculation,"  said  Thomas 
Pownall  in  1780;  "the  whole  must  in  the  course 
of  events  become  parts  of  the  great  North 
American  domain."  That  a  century  and  a  fifth 
have  passed  without  the  fulfilment  of  this  proph- 
ecy is  a  marvel  in  the  history  of  a  changeful 
world ;  and  it  is  the  purpose  of  this  article  to 
show  why  Cuba,  the  most  valuable  of  the  West 
Indies,  so  long  lay  within  the  boundary  of  the 
Spanish  Empire. 

What  Cuba  has  been,  all  the  world  knows  — 
the  first  important  land  to  be  discovered  by 
Europeans ;  with  its  neighbor,  Porto  Rico,  the 
last  remnant  of  a  mighty  Spanish  empire  in 
America.  How  Cuba  was  governed  and  ex- 
ploited for  four  centuries  is  a  matter  of  history : 
the  colonial  policy  of  Spain  from  the  beginning, 
and  in  all  her  colonies,  aimed  to  throw  the 
profits  of  colonial  trade  into  the  hands  of  home 
merchants.  The  rigor  of  the  system  defeated 
108 


Importance  109 

its  own  ends,  for  it  invited  evasion ;  and  cor- 
ruption of  the  Spanish  colonial  official  has  from 
time  immemorial  been  a  part  of  the  foreign  mer- 
chant's expense  account.  Yet  from  the  first, 
one  colony  has  always  furnished  enough  taxes 
and  customs  to  give  a  large  revenue  to  the 
mother  country:  that  colony  is  Cuba. 

For  this  tropical  island  has  the  natural  ele-  importance, 
ments  of  great  wealth ;  its  area  of  forty-three 
thousand  square  miles  has  a  seacoast  of  over 
two  thousand  miles;  it  is  accessible  in  nearly 
every  part,  and  stands  at  the  crossways  of  two 
international  highways  —  from  the  United  States 
to  eastern  South  America,  and  from  Europe  to 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  Besides  its  staple  crops  of 
sugar  and  tobacco,  it  has  valuable  timber,  fruit, 
and  minerals,  and  its  exports  were  in  1894  worth 
more  than  a  hundred  million  dollars.  Politically, 
it  is  now  the  only  West  India  island  of  conse- 
quence ;  and  it  has  steadily  increased  in  popula- 
tion and  importance.  It  has  been  coveted  by 
several  great  powers;  it  has  long  shimmered 
before  the  desireful  eyes  of  Americans ;  and  it 
was  held  by  Spain  with  Iberian  obstinacy  and 
sacrifice  of  human  lives. 

As  for  the  Spaniards  in  Cuba,  they  were  not  31.  The 
governors,  but  masters ;    they  held  by  military  ^^cy^g''' 
garrison,  and  they  are  a  race  not  much  disturbed 
by  human  suffering.     They  were  worse  slave- 
masters  even  than  Anglo-Saxons ;  they  have  for 


no  Cuban  Diplomacy 

ages  been  accustomed  to  a  vindictiveness  in  war 
which  finds  vent  in  the  massacre  of  prisoners 
and  the  pillage  of  non-combatants.  Their  sys- 
tem of  legal  procedure,  like  that  of  all  Latin 
nations,  shocks  the  Anglo-Saxon  by  its  harsh- 
ness to  the  suspect  and  its  cruelty  to  the  con- 
victed. Colonial  authorities  have  a  despotic 
power,  and  they  cannot  be  effectively  controlled 
from  Spain.  The  Cubans  are  of  the  same  race, 
but  in  all  the  Spanish  colonies  the  native  Span- 
iard has  held  himself,  and  has  been  held  by  the 
home  government,  above  the  colonist  whose 
father  was  a  Spaniard.  Under  such  circum- 
stances, the  administration  of  Cuba  was  always 
exasperating  to  neighboring  peoples,  and  most 
of  all  to  the  United  States. 
Race  Political  and  race  elements  in  Cuba  have  been 

much  confused,  owing  to  the  negro  population, 
and  to  a  division  of  sentiment  among  white 
Cubans.  Up  to  1878  six  classes  might  be  dis- 
tinguished in  the  population :  Spaniards,  white 
Cubans  adherent  to  the  Spaniards,  white  Cubans 
opposed  to  the  administration,  mulattoes  (many 
of  them  owners  of  property),  free  blacks,  and 
slaves.  In  1895  there  were  but  two  distinct 
classes  —  a  Spanish  party  of  Spaniards  and 
Cubans,  and  a  Cuban  party.  Throughout  the 
century,  however,  others  besides  Spaniards 
and  Cubans  have  taken  part  in  Cuban  affairs. 
Professional    Spanish-American    revolutionists, 


Elements  1 1 1 

such  as  Santa  Anna  and  Lopez,  have  planned 
to  rouse  the  sluggish  Cubans ;  for  many  years 
there  has  been  a  class  of  Cubans  who  have  natu- 
ralized in  the  United  States  and  then  returned 
to  Cuba  to  live ;  and  a  small  but  ardent  class  of 
native  Cubans,  often  Spanish  subjects,  has  made 
the  United  States  a  base  of  revolutionary 
schemes.  Finally,  in  all  the  Cuban  troubles, 
there  have  been  plenty  of  Americans  born  who 
were  eager  to  join  in  expeditions  to  Cuba,  and 
thus  in  war  on  Spain. 

Diplomatically  speaking,  Cuba  has  been  not  Diplomacy, 
a  subject,  but  an  object ;  it  had  no  authority 
to  negotiate  or  settle  any  foreign  question.  Cu- 
ban diplomacy  was  only  Spanish  diplomacy  at 
long  range,  for  the  captains-general  had  great 
authority  to  disturb  foreign  residents,  and  to 
take  foreign  property,  but  none  to  redress  griev- 
ances or  to  make  indemnities.  Every  disputed 
question  was  settled  —  or,  rather,  was  put  off 
—  at  Madrid,  and  impatient  Anglo-Saxons  got 
weary  of  the  Spanish  Foreign  Office,  where 
everything  was  promised  and  nothing  was  done. 

One  reason  for  habitual  diplomatic  delays  is 
that  Spain  has  been  for  a  century  a  declining  Decay  of 
power,  and  takes  refuge  in  procrastination,  e^"'^^ 
The  Spaniards  governed  ill  in  1795,  but  at  least 
they  governed  widely ;  from  the  Mississippi 
River  to  the  Pacific,  from  Oregon  to  Cape 
Horn,  from   the   boundary   of   Georgia   to  the 


112 


Cuban  Diplomacy 


Revolt  of  the 

Colonies, 

1807-1823. 


Cuban 
Administra- 
tion. 


Dutch  in  Surinam,  from  the  La  Plata  south- 
ward —  coasts,  islands,  and  interior  were  Span- 
ish. Yet  that  seeming  empire  was  already 
shattered  ;  and  in  the  first  third  of  the  century 
the  Spanish  continental  empire  crumbled  away, 
till  Spain  remained  an  American  power  only  in 
retaining  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico. 

The  Spanish  nation  was  still  warlike  and  tena- 
cious ;  it  lost  its  colonies,  not  because  they  were 
strong,  but  because  the  home  country  was  slowly 
decaying.^  In  1795  Spain  was  swept  into  the 
maelstrom  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  and  the 
French  treated  her  in  succession  as  an  enemy, 
ally,  dupe,  dependent  province,  and  despairing 
rebel.  When,  in  1807,  the  king  of  Spain  was 
put  under  lock  and  key  by  Napoleon,  the  Span- 
ish colonies  began  to  take  charge  of  their  own 
affairs,  and  they  never  for  a  moment  acknowl- 
edged French  domination.  In  18 14  they  re- 
turned to  a  nominal  allegiance  to  Spain  ;  but 
they  had  tasted  the  sweets  of  independence ; 
they  broke  loose  again,  and  by  1823  Spain  had 
nothing  left  on  the  continent  of  America  except 
an  empty  claim  to  sovereignty  and  the  two 
castles  of  Callao  and  San  Juan  de  Ulloa. 

Since  that  time  the  hold  of  Spain  on  Cuba 
was  always  that  of  a  harsh  administration  in 
a  disaffected  province.  The  Spanish  princi- 
ple has  been  that  of   "stick  fast"  —  to  grant 

1  See  Chapter  i, 


Interest  113 

nothing  in  privileges,  reforms,  territory,  or 
humane  treatment,  except  under  pressure.  If 
the  Cubans  wanted  a  better  government,  the 
only  method  that  they  knew  was  to  revolt. 
Under  these  conditions  Cuba  would  much  ear- 
lier have  ceased  to  be  Spanish  had  there  not 
been  a  third  element  in  the  problem  —  the  will 
and  the  diplomacy  of  the  United  States  of 
America. 

Said  John  Quincy  Adams  in  1823  :  "From  a  33.  interest 
multitude  of  considerations  Cuba  has  become  an  ct***5/"***^ 

states  in 

object  of  transcendent  importance  to  the  com-  Cuba, 
mercial  and  political  interests  of  our  Union. 
Its  commanding  position,  .  .  .  the  nature  of  its 
productions  and  of  its  wants,  furnishing  the 
supplies  and  needing  the  returns  of  a  commerce 
immensely  profitable  and  mutually  beneficial, 
give  it  an  importance  in  the  sum  of  our  national 
interests  with  which  that  of  no  other  foreign 
territory  can  be  compared,  and  little  inferior  to 
that  which  binds  the  different  members  of  this 
Union  together." 

The  commercial  and  military  reasons  upon 
which  Adams  dwelt  have  grown  stronger  in  the 
last  three  quarters  of  a  century,  for  trade  has 
advanced,  and  the  enormous  development  of  the 
Mississippi  Valley  and  of  the  Gulf  coast,  and 
the  likelihood  of  an  isthmian  canal,  give  new 
strategic  importance  to  the  holder  of  Cuba.  A 
strong  national  sympathy  for  the  Cubans  has 


114  Cuban  Diplo^nacy 

also  shown   itself   whenever,  as   in  1822- 1826, 
1849-185 1,  1868-1878,  and  1895-1898,  Cubans 
have  seemed  likely  to  throw  off   the  Spanish 
rule. 
Land-  Another  factor  is  the  land-hunger  of  the  peo- 

hunger.  pj^  ^^  ^.j^^  United  States,  —their  natural,  hearty, 

and  irrepressible  desire  to  make  a  large  country 
larger ;  their  conviction  that  Anglo-Saxon  civili- 
zation must  prevail  over  Latin  civilization  where 
they  come  in  conflict.  Since  so  much  of  our 
present  territory  has  fallen  from  or  been  wrested 
from  the  hands  of  Spain  or  Spain's  successors, 
perhaps  we  feel  that  the  reversion  of  Cuba  is 
ours. 
Conservative  With  SO  many  strong  interests  in  Cuba,  it  was 
Policy.  jQjjg  ^gQ  predicted  that  the  United  States  would 

seize  it ;  but  a  study  of  the  records  of  the 
century's  diplomacy  shows  that,  on  the  con- 
trary, conservative  principles  long  ago  got  a 
lodgment  in  the  national  consciousness,  and  held 
the  nation  back  from  interference.  Toward 
Spain,  for  instance,  the  United  States  was  usu- 
ally friendly ;  it  was  clearly  understood  that  no 
third  power  should  take  Cuba  if  the  power  of 
Spain  were  upheld  there ;  but  it  was  a  general 
belief  that  Spanish  rule  would  eventually  break 
down  by  its  own  weight.  Toward  other  pow- 
ers the  United  States  always  said  "hands  off" 
whenever  they  showed  an  inclination  for  Cuba. 
Toward  the  Cubans  there  was  the  feeling  that 


Analysis  1 1 5 

in  any  quarrel  with  Spain  they  must  be  in  the 
right,  but  that  they  could  not  give  assurance  of  a 
permanent,  orderly  government.  In  any  commo- 
tion in  Cuba  the  rights  of  America  were  always 
involved,  always  disregarded,  and  always  needed 
to  be  vigorously  protected.  Except  in  1 875-1876 
it  has  been  a  principle  of  American  diplomacy 
that  no  other  nations  have  any  right  to  take 
part  in  the  settlement  of  Cuban  troubles.  As 
for  annexation,  as  often  as  an  opportunity  to 
acquire  Cuba  has  come,  the  nation  has  deliber- 
ately refused. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  chapter  to  show  how  33.  Analysis 
these  various    principles   grew  up   during   the  ^i^omac 
hundred  years  from  the  first  Spanish  treaty  in   1795-1895. 
1795  to  the  second   Cuban  rebellion  of    1895. 
The  century's  diplomacy  may  be  conveniently 
divided  as  follows:  (i)From  1795  to  1807  we 
desired  friendship  and  commerce  with  all  the 
Spanish    dominions,   including   Cuba.      (2)   In 
1 807- 1 809  we  feared  the  annexation  of  the  whole 
Spanish  Empire  by  France.     (3)  In  18 19-1826 
we  feared  the  annexation  of  Cuba  by  England. 

(4)  From  1826  to  1845  we  feared  and  probably 
prevented    the    independence   of    the   Cubans. 

(5)  From  1848  to  1861  successive  administra- 
tions feared  both  Spanish  and  Cuban  mastery, 
and  strove  to  annex  the  island.  (6)  In  the 
insurrection  of  1868- 1878  the  first  care  of  our 
government  was  the  protection  of  its  own  citi- 


ii6  Cuban  Diplomacy 

zens,  and  its  second  interest  was  the  stopping 
of  a  devastating  civil  war;  though  annexation 
seemed  possible,  it  was  put  aside.  (7)  From 
1878  to  1895  the  United  States  strove  to  extend 
its  commerce  with  Cuba  and  to  protect  investors, 
without  questioning  Spain's  control. 

No  one  can  study  Cuban  diplomacy  without 
coming  to  strong  convictions ;  but  it  is  not  the 
historian's  duty  here  to  applaud,  to  defend,  or 
to  criticise,  our  national  policy :  his  function  is 
to  relate  facts  in  their  logical  connection ;  the 
reader's  privilege  to  make  deductions  for  him- 
self ;  the  statesman's  difficult  task  to  apply  the 
lessons  of  the  past  to  present  problems. 
34.  Com-  ^^  ^^^  negotiations  for  the  Treaty  of    1795, 

merciai  Jefferson,  then  Secretary  of  State,  put  on  record 

1795-1807'  ^  principle  which,  with  few  exceptions,  has  ever 
since  been  observed.  He  declared  that  "we 
should  have  nothing  to  do  with  conquest,"  and 
that  "  we  had  with  sincere  and  particular  dispo- 
sition courted  and  cultivated  the  friendship  of 
Spain."  The  treaty  was  obtained,  but  friend- 
ship was  severely  strained  by  Spanish  captures 
of  American  merchantmen,  and  by  American 
claims  to  West  Florida;  not  till  1821  was  the 
danger  of  hostilities  finally  relieved  by  the  ces- 
sion of  the  Floridas.  From  that  time,  notwith- 
standing the  contrast  in  the  habits  and  aims  of 
the  two  nations,  there  has  been  but  one  serious 
cause  of   controversy  with  Spain  —  Cuba;  and 


Commerce  117 

for  many  years  the  United  States  avoided  an 
issue  on  that  question  by  standing  virtually  as 
the  guarantor  of  the  Spanish  dominion  of  the 
island  against  foreign  powers,  and  even  against 
the  Cubans, 

For  instance,  Clay,  in  1825,  gave  formal  Guaranty, 
notice  "  that  the  United  States,  for  themselves, 
desired  no  change  in  the  political  condition  of 
Cuba."  President  Van  Buren,  in  1840,  assured 
Spain  that  "  in  case  of  any  attempt,  from  what- 
ever quarter,  to  wrest  from  her  this  portion  of 
her  territory,  she  may  securely  depend  upon 
the  military  and  naval  resources  of  the  United 
States  to  aid  in  preserving  or  recovering  it." 
Secretary  Fish,  in  1871,  was  justified  in  saying 
that  "  the  United  States  have  no  other  right  to 
interpose  than  that  growing  out  of  the  friendly 
relations  which  have  always  existed  between 
them  and  Spain,  and  the  good  faith  with  which 
they  have  observed  their  duties  and  obligations." 

The  subversion  of  the  Spanish  monarchy  by  35-  Appre- 
Napoleon,  in  1807,  ^or  the  first  time  revealed  to  Annexation 
American  statesmen  their  responsibility  for  Cuba,  ^y^^l^^ 
President  Jefferson  was  a  man  of  peace ;  Secre- 
tary of  State  Madison  thought  well  of  human 
nature ;  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Gallatin  was 
a  hard-headed  man,  not  frightened  by  bugaboos ; 
but  the  three  men  united  in  the  belief  that  the 
great  conqueror  would  never  take  the  hen  away 
from  the  chicks,  that  with  Spain  he  meant  also 


1807-Z809. 


1 1 8  Cuban  Diplomacy 


Jefferson  on 
Annexation, 
1807. 


Buenos 
Ayres,  1806. 

Madison, 
1811. 


to  take  Cuba.  Hence,  Jefferson,  August  i6, 
1807,  made  the  earliest  recorded  suggestion  of 
the  annexation  of  Cuba  to  the  United  States : 
"  Probably  Cuba  would  add  itself  to  our  confed- 
eration," in  case  of  war  with  Spain.  In  1809 
he  prophesied  the  annexation  of  Cuba  and 
Canada :  "  and  we  should  have  such  an  empire 
for  Liberty  as  she  has  never  surveyed  since  the 
creation ;  and  I  am  persuaded  no  constitution 
was  ever  before  so  well  calculated  as  ours  for 
extensive  empire  and  self-government."  But 
he  qualified  his  empire  by  two  Umitations :  "  I 
would  immediately  erect  a  column  on  the  south- 
ernmost limit  of  Cuba,  and  inscribe  on  it  a  ne  plus 
ultra  as  to  us  in  that  direction " ;  and  "  Cuba 
can  be  defended  by  us  without  a  navy,  and  this 
develops  the  principle  which  ought  to  limit  our 
views.  Nothing  should  ever  be  accepted  which 
would  require  a  navy  to  defend  it." 

Another  real  danger  was  that  England  would 
wrest  away  some  of  the  Spanish  colonies ;  and 
in  1806  a  British  force,  afterward  disavowed, 
captured  Buenos  Ayres.  Gallatin  feared  "  British 
ascendency"  in  Cuba;  and  Madison,  in  181 1, 
thought  that  "  England  will  play  some  game 
with  Cuba  if  the  United  States  take  possession 
of  East  Florida."  The  danger  was  averted 
when  England  became  the  ally  of  Spain  in 
1809;  Wellington's  troops  virtually  helped  to 
save  Cuba  from  France. 


Apprehensions  119 

Twice  since  that  time  the  French  have  shown  Later  Com- 
unwelcome  interest  in  Cuba.  In  1823  they  were  p''*^^*'°"^- 
checked  by  Clay's  declaration  that  "  the  United 
States  could  not  see  with  indifference  these 
islands  passing  from  Spain  to  any  other  power." 
The  last  interference  of  France  in  American 
affairs  was  the  subjugation  of  Mexico,  in  1861- 
1866;  and  a  threat  of  war  from  the  American 
government  caused  France  definitely  and  per- 
manently to  withdraw  from  any  claim  or  hopes 
of  American  possessions  on  the  mainland  or  in 
Cuba. 

Meanwhile  new  dangers  arose  in  three  quarters  36.  Appre- 
at  once.     As  the  only  remaining  stronghold  of  pension  of 

■'  00  Annexation 

Spanish  power,  Cuba  became  the  miUtary  objec-  by  England, 
tive  of  Mexico  and  Colombia  in  their  war  with  »8*9-i8^- 
Spain ;  at  the  same  time  there  was  a  rising  in 
Porto  Rico  and  much  uneasiness  in  Cuba,  where 
several  attempts  were  made  to  raise  a  revolt; 
and  there  were  hints  that  aid  was  to  come  from 
sympathizers  in  the  United  States.  To  crown 
all,  from  18 19  to  1823  rumors  abounded  that 
England  was  treating  with  Spain  for  Cuba.  As 
the  London  Courier  said,  in  1825,  "Cuba  is  the 
Turkey  of  transatlantic  politics,  tottering  to  its 
fall,  and  kept  from  falling  only  by  the  struggles 
of  those  who  contend  for  the  right  of  catching 
her  in  her  descent." 

In  the  critical  years  of  1822- 1823  every  policy  ^'■'•'*=*' 
was  considered  by  the  United  States  which  has  1823.' 


120  Cuban  Diplomacy 

been  suggested  in  the  seventy-five  years  since 
that  time :  encouraging  Cuban  insurrection, 
filibustering,  warning  other  American  powers, 
warning  European  powers,  good  advice  to 
Spain,  joint  guaranty,  purchase,  and  forced 
annexation. 

In  the  midst  of  this  rumor  and  excitement 
there   appeared   in  Washington,  in    1822,  one 
Sanchez,        Sanchez,  purporting  to  be  a  secret  agent  of  an 
1822.  organization  of  Cubans  who  were  ready  to  de- 

clare the  island  independent  of  Spain  if  Monroe 
would  admit  it  as  a  state  into  the  Union.  This 
extraordinary  overture  was  gravely  discussed 
by  the  Cabinet,  and  Monroe  gave  the  man  two 
letters  —  one  refusing  to  take  any  step  hostile 
to  Spain,  the  other  asking  for  more  information. 
Sanchez  thereupon  disappears,  and  with  him 
the  first  distinct  scheme  of  annexation  through 
independence. 

We  find  the  policy  of  the  government  summed 
J.  Q.  Adams,  up  in  an  elaborate  despatch  sent  by  John  Quincy 
^^'^^'  Adams,  Secretary  of  State,  April  28,  1823  :  "In 

looking  forward  to  the  probable  course  of  events 
for  the  short  period  of  half  a  century,  it  is 
scarcely  possible  to  resist  the  conviction  that 
the  annexation  of  Cuba  to  our  federal  republic 
will  be  indispensable  to  the  continuance  and  the 
integrity  of  the  Union  itself.  .  .  .  The  question 
both  of  our  right  and  of  our  power  to  prevent 
.  .  .  the  transfer  of  Cuba  to  Great  Britain,  if 


No  Annexation  121 

necessary  by  force,  already  obtrudes  itself  upon 
our  councils." 

Just  at  this  time  sprang  up  an  idea  —  later  of  suggested 
much  importance  —  that  Cuba  could  be  made  J?"'^ 

Declaration. 

safe  by  a  mutual  disclaimer  by  England  and  the 
United  States.  President  Monroe  was  pleased 
with  the  idea;  Adams  inclined  to  it;  Gallatin, 
as  minister  to  England,  thought  it  the  solution ; 
but  no  joint  declaration  was  made,  and  the 
United  States  escaped  an  "entangUng  alliance." 

Nevertheless,  it  was  thought  expedient  from 
time  to  time  to  renew  a  warning.    Thus,  in  1840, 
President  Van    Buren   notified    Spain   that,   if  VanBuren, 
Cuba  was  in  question,  the  United  States  would  *^°' 
"prevent  at  all  hazards  military  occupation  by 
England."     Again,  in   1843,  Webster  brought  vvebster, 
forward   the  argument    that  we   might   annex  ^^'♦s- 
Cuba  if  necessary  to  prevent  English  annexa- 
tion.    At  various  times  from  1845  to  1861  there 
were  rumors  of  British  designs  in  Cuba ;  but  there 
was  never  serious  danger  from  that  quarter  after 
1823  ;  for  it  was  evident  that  for  any  European 
nation  to  take  Cuba,  with  or  without  the  consent 
of  Spain,  meant  war  with  the  United  States. 

The  year  1823  is  the  dividing  line  in  Cuban 
diplomacy.     Up  to  that  time  independence  and  37-  Appre- 
even  annexation  seemed  probable ;    after  that  cuban  inde- 
time  both   were  for  twenty  years  discouraged  pendence, 
by  the  American  government.     When  Adams 
became  President  in  1825,  he  allowed  the  sug- 


122 


Cuban  Diplomacy 


Attempt  to 

purchase, 
1825. 


Slavery, 
1825-1826. 


gestion  to  the  Spanish  government  that  Cuba 
be  deposited  with  the  United  States  as  a  pledge 
for  "  a  loan  "  ;  but  this  first  attempt  to  buy  tuba 
had  no  success. 

Already  a  new  force  had  begun  to  hold  the 
nation  back,  alike  from  schemes  of  annexation 
and  of  Cuban  independence.  That  force  was 
slavery,  and  it  affected  even  such  Northern 
men  as  Adams,  Van  Buren,  and  Webster. 
The  first  evidence  of  the  power  of  the  slave 
barons  is  an  appeal  to  Russia  in  1825  to  move 
Spain  to  recognize  the  independence  of  Mexico 
and  Colombia,  so  as  to  stop  the  war,  and  avert 
their  project  for  invading  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico. 
The  real  trouble  was  that  the  new  Latin- Ameri- 
can states,  as  James  Buchanan  put  it,  **  always 
marched  under  the  standard  of  universal  emanci- 
pation," and  might  free  the  Cuban  slaves.  The 
demand  of  the  slaveholders  was  more  distinctly 
stated  in  1826  by  John  M.  Berrien,  of  Georgia: 
"  If  our  interests  and  safety  shall  require  us  to 
say  to  these  new  republics,  *  Cuba  and  Porto 
Rico  must  remain  as  they  are,'  we  are  free  to 
say  it,  and,  by  the  blessing  of  God  and  the 
strength  of  our  arms,  to  enforce  the  declara- 
tion." 

The  protest  of  the  United  States  was  effectual. 
Mexico  and  Colombia  forbore  to  attack  their 
enemy  Spain  in  her  most  vulnerable  spot,  and 
thus  was  lost  the  best  opportunity  of  the  century 


Slavery  1 23 

for  getting  Cuba  out  of  the   hands  of   Spain 

without  any  interference  by  the  United  States. 

The  policy  was  continued  for  many  years.    Van  van  Buren, 

Buren,  in  1829,  said  it  was  "the  interest  of  the  ^^^ 

Southern  section  of  the  Union  that  no  attempt 

should  be  made  in  that  island  to  throw  off  the 

yoke  of  Spanish  dependence " ;   and  Webster, 

in  1843,  feared  that  Cuban  emancipation  would 

"  strike  a  death  blow  to  the  existence  of  slavery 

in  the  United  States." 

The  indifference  of  the  United  States  to  the  Cuban 
acquisition  of  Cuba  was,  however,  not  wholly  ^'^^®* 
due  to  slavery.  Van  Buren  praised  "the  wis- 
dom which  induced  the  Spanish  government" 
to  open  Cuban  ports  to  general  commerce.  As 
for  new  territory,  the  annexationists  were  direct- 
ing all  their  energies  to  Texas,  where  slavery 
was  in  no  danger ;  and  beneath  all  sectional  in- 
terests there  lay  a  national  unwillingness  to  get 
involved  in  the  difficulties  and  complications 
which  must  attend  the  annexation  of  Cuba. 

In  the  history  of  the  United  States  the  policy  38.  Scheme 
of  annexation  has  always  grown  by  what  it  feeds  ^^j,n  ^"^the 
on.      After   Louisiana  came   Oregon   and   the  United 
Floridas ;  after  Texas  came  New  Mexico  and  ig^s^^^, 
California ;  and  before  their  status  was  settled, 
in  1850,  schemes  had  sprung  up  for  annexing 
Yucatan,  Hawaii,  Central  America,  the  Lobos 
Islands,  and  Cuba.     By  this  time  the  country 
could  choose  any  one  of  three  methods,  all  of 


124  Cuban  Diplomacy 


Buchanan, 
1848. 


which  were  sanctioned  by  experience :  it  might 
buy  Cuba  as  Louisiana  had  been  bought ;  it 
might  assist  Cuban  independence  as  a  pre- 
liminary to  later  incorporation,  as  had  been 
done  in  Texas;  or  it  might  adopt  the  Roman 
method  of  seizing  the  coveted  land  as  it  had 
seized  California.  Each  of  these  three  methods 
was  tried  in  turn,  and  each  was  unsuccessful. 

The  apostle  of  annexation  from  1848  to  1861 
was  James  Buchanan,  Secretary  of  State,  later 
minister  to  England,  later  still  President.  In 
1848  he  revived  the  plan  of  purchasing  Cuba  by 
offering  $ioo,ooo,oco  for  the  island.  Unde- 
Pierce,  1853.  terred  by  an  offended  refusal.  President  Pierce, 
in  1853,  desired  to  have  a  few  millions  put  at 
his  disposal ;  but  the  Spanish  Secretary  of  For- 
eign Affairs  declared  that  "to  part  with  Cuba 
would  be  to  part  with  national  honor."  Plans 
of  purchase  now  languished,  till  Buchanan  be- 
came President;  his  request  for  thirty  millions 
"to  acquire  Cuba  by  honorable  negotiation" 
could  not  stand  against  the  insight  of  men  like 
Ben  Wade,  who  said  that  annexation  at  that 
time  was  simply  a  question  of  "  giving  niggers 
to  the  niggerless."  Since  1861  there  has  been 
no  oflficial  offer  for  the  purchase  of  Cuba. 

Side  by  side  with  these  schemes  of  purchase 
went  the  idea  of  annexation  through  Cuban  in- 
dependence. Presidents  Polk,  Taylor,  Fillmore, 
and  Pierce,  for  various  reasons,  frowned  on  the 


Buchanan, 
1859. 


Filibusters, 

1849-1854. 


Annexation  1 25 

expeditions  organized  in  the  United  States  from 
1849  to  1854  to  descend  on  Cuba;  and  the 
Cubans  did  not  cooperate  in  what  might  be 
called  the  hurricane  revolutions  which  came  to 
the  island  from  outside.  Nevertheless,  about 
two  hundred  Americans  joined  General  Lopez 
in  a  landing  in  Cuba  in  August,  185 1 ;  he  was 
defeated,  and  many  of  the  surviving  Americans 
were  shot  in  cold  blood  after  surrender.  Though 
they  had  taken  their  lives  in  their  own  hands, 
they  were  prisoners  of  war,  and  the  execution 
was  a  barbarity.  Hence  rioters  attacked  the 
house  of  the  Spanish  consul  in  New  Orleans 
and  tore  a  Spanish  flag  into  fragments ;  even- 
tually the  United  States  paid  an  indemnity  to 
the  consul,  and  the  storm  passed  by. 

Failing  purchase  or  insurrection,  annexation 
by  force  seemed  the  only  possible  method.  To 
head  off  such  a  scheme  England  and  France,  in 
185 1,  proposed  that  the  United  States  should  Tripartite 
join  in  a  tripartite  declaration  against  exclusive  fsswl^,. 
control  of  Cuba  by  any  of  the  three.  Secretary 
Everett,  in  1852,  replied  by  asserting  in  round 
terms  the  truth  that  the  United  States  had  an 
interest  in  Cuba  incomparably  greater  than 
that  of  any  other  power,  and  that,  "  under  cer- 
tain contingencies,  it  might  be  essential  to  our 
safety,"  though  the  President  "  would  consider 
its  acquisition  by  force  (except  in  a  just  war 
with  Spain)  as  a  disgrace  to  the  civilization  of 


126  Cuban  Diplomacy 


Black  War- 
rior, 1854. 


Annexation 
fiails,  1854. 


the  age."  From  Everett's  despatch  all  the  way 
down  to  1895,  Spain  and  the  United  States  were 
left  to  settle  their  affairs  face  to  face,  with  no 
aid  from  a  European  conclave. 

When  Pierce  appointed  so  fiery  an  annexa- 
tionist as  Pierre  Soul6  minister  to  Spain  in 
1853,  it  did  not  seem  likely  that  any  reason- 
able offer  of  "just  war"  would  be  declined. 
The  occasion  came  February  28,  1854,  by  the 
seizure,  on  a  technicality,  of  the  cargo  of  the 
steamer  Black  Warrior^  in  Havana.  Soul6 
blew  the  coals  in  Spain,  and  demanded  in- 
demnity within  forty-eight  hours  by  the  Span- 
ish secretary's  clock.  Calderon  sternly  replied 
that  "  he  was  not  accustomed  to  the  harsh  and 
imperious  manner  in  which  this  matter  has  been 
expressed." 

In  this  crisis  the  decisive  influence  was  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  by  which  the  President 
had  already  raised  up  a  powerful  and  implacable 
opposition.  In  the  face  of  the  indignant  Ameri- 
can people  he  could  not  take  a  second  aggressive 
step  for  slavery ;  hence,  when  reparation  was 
offered  by  Spain  for  the  Black  Warrior  affair, 
it  was  accepted.  One  is  tempted  to  wish  that 
Pierce  had  defied  the  moral  sentiment  of  the 
country  consistently,  and  by  unrequited  an- 
nexation had  spared  us  forty  years  of  Cuban 
diplomacy.  When  the  pirate  Menas  whispered 
to  Pompey, 


Ostend  Manifesto  127 

"  These  three  world-sharers,  these  competitors, 
Are  in  thy  vessel :  let  me  cut  the  cable, 
And  when  we  are  put  oflf,  fall  to  their  throats. 
All  then  is  thine," 

the  conqueror  could  but  reply, 

"  Ah,  this  thou  shouldst  have  done, 
And  not  have  spoken  on't.     In  me,  'tis  villany." 

Hardly  had  peace  been  assured,  when  it  was 
endangered  by  the  Ostend  Manifesto,  framed  Ostend  Man- 
by  Buchanan,  Mason,  and  Soul6,  the  baldest  ^«^^°' »854. 
and  blackest  plea  that  was  ever  made  for  the 
forcible  annexation  of  Cuba :  "  If  Cuba  in  the 
possession  of  Spain  seriously  endangers  our  in- 
ternal peace  and  the  existence  of  our  cherished 
Union,  then  by  every  law,  human  and  divine, 
we  shall  be  justified  in  wresting  it  from  Spain." 
In  essence  the  argument  was  nothing  other  than 
that  Cuba  must  be  annexed,  in  order  to  keep 
slavery  alive  in  the  United  States.  The  con- 
troversy over  secession  soon  arose,  and  the 
Cuban  question  for  many  years  was  not  an 
issue  in  national  politics  or  a  subject  of  inter- 
national negotiation. 

After  the  Civil  War  attention  was  recalled  39-  Period 
to  Cuba  by  several  changes  of  circumstances.  cubanWar 
First,  we  had  a  new  experience  with  insurgent  1868-1878. 
communities.     Secondly,  Secretary  Seward  at- 
tempted to  inaugurate  a  new  era  of   annexa- 
tions;   he   got    Alaska,   and    treated    for    St. 


128  Cuban  Diplomacy 


Dislocation 
of  Spain, 
1868-1875. 


Thomas  and  San  Domingo,  and  we  were  thus 
confronted  with  a  new  West  Indian  policy. 
Thirdly,  the  extortions  and  aggressions  of 
Spanish  administration  in  Cuba  were  felt  with 
more  irritation  every  year.  For  instance,  Spain 
claimed  that  the  boundary  of  Cuba  extended 
six  miles  out  to  sea  instead  of  three  miles ; 
American  negro  seamen  were  not  allowed 
ashore ;  men-of-war  off  CubsCn  ports  were  not 
to  send  in  their  boats ;  Americans  were  im- 
pressed, taxed,  their  property  embargoed  or 
confiscated,  in  violation  of  the  Treaty  of  1795. 
That  the  American  citizens  thus  maltreated  bore 
such  names  as  Don  Ramon  Rivas  y  Lamar 
made  no  difference  to  the  American  govern- 
ment, which  protected  all  naturalized  citizens, 
however  unpalatable  they  might  be  to  the  Cuban 
authorities.  At  the  same  time,  the  United 
States  had  now  become  the  advocate  of  free- 
dom, and  put  a  great  pressure  on  Spain  to 
emancipate  the  Cuban  slaves. 

The  greatest  change  of  all  was  the  breaking 
out  in  1868  of  the  first  genuine  spontaneous 
movement  for  Cuban  independence.  It  was  a 
favorable  moment ;  for,  between  September, 
1868,  and  January,  1875,  Spain  passed  through 
four  convulsions,  or  rather  revolutions,  which  in 
succession  gave  to  the  home  country  and  Cuba 
a  Bourbon  monarchy,  a  provisional  government, 
an  elective  king,  a  republic,  and  the  restoration 


U^'ar  of  1 868  129 

of  the  Bourbon  house.  Under  each  of  these  re- 
gimes the  loyal  portion  of  Cuba  was  impartially 
misgoverned,  and  little  progress  could  be  made 
in  subduing  the  disloyal  part.  The  Cubans  had 
no  port,  had  no  regular  combined  army,  and 
throve  on  guerilla  operations.  It  was  a  dreadful 
warfare ;  and  as  has  always  happened  in  strug- 
gles between  Spain  and  her  colonists,  it  led  to 
ferocity.  Shooting  prisoners  and  students,  inter- 
ruption of  commerce,  arbitrary  government  in 
Havana,  destruction  of  property,  and  waste  of 
human  life,  —  these  were  the  incidents  of  the 
civil  war  in  Cuba;  yet  the  United  States  con- 
scientiously held  aloof  from  aid  to  the  insur- 
gents. 

A  crisis  came  in  November,  1873.  The  Virginius, 
steamer  Virginius,  registered  as  an  American  ^^''^* 
ship  in  the  port  of  New  York,  was  captured 
at  sea  by  a  Spanish  vessel  of  war,  carried  into 
a  Cuban  port,  and  there  about  fifty  of  her  offi- 
cers and  crew  were  summarily  shot.  A  double 
grievance  was  thus  created :  the  seizure  of  an 
American  vessel  on  the  high  seas  and  the  kill- 
ing of  American  citizens  without  civil  trial. 
Spain  could  not  govern  her  governors,  for  orders 
telegraphed  from  Spain  had  no  effect ;  and  the 
turn  of  President  Grant's  hand  would  have 
brought  on  war.  The  Spaniards,  however,  made 
out  against  the  Virginius  a  clear  case  of  fraud 
in  getting  her  American  register ;  and  the  Presi- 


130  Cuban  Diplomacy 

dent,  a  man  whose  courage  was  not  to  be  ques- 
tioned, accepted  the  surrender  of  the  vessel,  and 
an  indemnity  to  the  families  of  the  murdered 
Americans;  and  thus  he  avoided  the  kindred 
issues  of  war  and  annexation. 

Meantime  the  Cuban  insurrection  dragged 
along,  with  a  new  crop  of  confiscations  and 
exactions  and  forced  loans,  at  the  expense  of 
American  citizens.  Claims  for  such  grievances 
were  adjusted  under  a  convention  of  February, 
1871 ;  but  in  March,  1877,  the  Spanish  govern- 
ment was  still  pleading  to  distribute  the  payment 
over  a  series  of  years.  President  Grant  had  in 
Proposed  vain  offered  his  mediation  "  for  the  purpose  of 
1875?^^""°°'  effecting  by  negotiation  the  peaceful  separation 
of  Cuba  from  Spain,"  and  Secretary  Fish  de- 
clared that  "  the  ultimate  issue  of  events  in  Cuba 
will  be  its  independence."  As  the  loss  and 
misery  of  the  war  still  continued,  in  December, 
1875,  President  Grant  intimated  that  "other 
nations  will  be  compelled  to  assume  the  respon- 
sibility which  devolves  upon  them,  and  to  seri- 
ously consider  the  only  remaining  measures 
possible,  mediation  and  intervention." 
Peace.  The  word  "intervention,"  in  this  sense  of  a 

^^^^'  joint  protest,  had  hardly  been  heard  since  1827; 

but  the  hint  was  sufficient  to  lead  Spain  to  make 
concessions,  which  the  Cubans  accepted  in  1877. 
President  Grant's  plan  of  foreign  intervention 
was  not  developed  into  details,  though  various 


Intervention  1 3 1 

foreign  governments  at  one  time  agreed  to 
unite  in  restoring  order  in  Cuba.  This  scheme 
of  a  concert  of  powers  would  have  been  a 
serious  departure  from  the  century's  policy  that 
in  Cuban  diplomacy  there  are  no  other  parties 
than  Spain,  the  Cubans,  and  the  United  States. 

Apparently  a  new  period  had  come  for  Cuba  :  40-  Period 
speedily  relieved  of  slavery,  trade  less  shackled,  i^^^ 
a  good  government  promised,  what  was  there  1878-1895. 
to  check  its  prosperity  or  to  revive  the  diffi- 
culties with  the  United  States }  It  was  soon 
found  that  things  fell  back  into  their  old  rut; 
the  captain-general  was  still  practically  abso- 
lute; the  island  was  saddled  with  the  debt 
created  to  hold  it  in  subjection;  it  was  still 
exploited  for  the  benefit  of  Spain,  and  the  same 
wearisome  impediments  were  laid  on  foreign 
traders.  For  example,  in  1880  several  vessels  Annoyances, 
were  fired  upon  by  Spanish  gunboats  outside 
the  jurisdiction  of  Cuba;  in  1881  an  American 
cattle  steamer,  subject  to  a  tax  of  $14.90,  was 
taxed  $387.40  because  she  had  some  lumber  on 
board.  In  1882  began  a  long-drawn-out  corre- 
spondence on  overcharges  and  illegal  exactions 
by  Spanish  consuls,  over  vexatious  fines  for 
small  clerical  errors,  and  over  annoying  pass- 
port regulations.  The  most  serious  trouble 
arose  out  of  the  refusal  of  the  Spanish  author- 
ities to  return  estates  confiscated  during  the  war 
to  American  citizens  of  Cuban  birth. 


132  Cuban  Diplomacy  | 

Reciprocity.  Meanwhile  trade  between  the  United  States 
and  Cuba  was  advancing  by  leaps  and  bounds. 
In  1850  the  sum  of  the  Cuban  trade  into  and 
out  of  the  United  States  was  $20,ooo,cxx) ; 
in  1880,  $76,000,000;  in  1894,  $105,000,000. 
American  capital  became  engaged  in  sugar  and 
other  industries.  The  two  countries  tried  to 
put  their  tariffs  on  a  better  footing  by  the  con- 
vention of  1884,  for  the  mutual  abandonment 
of  discriminating  duties;  and  in  1893  Spain 
accepted  reciprocity  under  the  tariff  of  1890; 
but  the  Cuban  authorities  evaded  the  privileges 
thus  conferred,  on  the  ground  that  they  were 
governed  by  a  special  Spanish  translation  from 
the  English  version  of  the  treaty,  and  not  by  the 
original  Spanish  version ;  and  it  was  three  years 
before  the  home  government  could  straighten 
out  this  petty  snarl. 
Filibustering,  In  1 884-1885  Came  some  filibustering  expedi- 
1884-1885.  ^jQj^g .  ^j^g  United  States  exerted  itself  to  stop 
them,  and  there  was  no  Cuban  insurrection. 
On  the  whole,  the  years  from  1879  to  1894  were 
freer  from  diplomatic  controversy  than  any  like 
period  since  1845.  Meanwhile  the  Cubans  in 
the  United  States  had  accumulated  a  revolution 
fund  of  a  million  dollars. 
41.  Reriew  Looking  back  over  the  century,  we  see  how 
PoUcy.  often   Cuba   has   been  a  source    of    irritation, 

anxiety,  and  danger.     Military,  commerical,  eco- 
nomic, ethical,  and  political  reasons  have  com- 


Review  1 33 

bined  to  compel  the  United  States  to  concern 
itself  with  the  neighboring  island.  Nevertheless, 
from  1795  to  1895  there  were  but  two  cases  of  di- 
rect interference  with  the  destinies  of  Cuba  —  by 
President  John  Quincy  Adams  in  1825,  and  by 
President  Grant  in  1875.  We  saw  the  Spanish 
Empire  break  up  without  stirring  for  Cuba ;  we 
saw  filibusters  in  1849- 185 1,  in  1854,  in  1868- 
1878,  1 884-1 885,  and  the  administration  never 
gave  them  aid  or  comfort ;  in  1854  and  1873  there 
came  excuses  for  war,  and  they  were  not  claimed. 
Among  the  advocates  of  the  annexation  of  Cuba 
have  been  Presidents  Jefferson,  Monroe,  John 
Quincy  Adams,  Jackson,  Polk,  Fillmore,  Pierce, 
and  Buchanan,  and  it  was  not  annexed. 

Reviewing  the  whole  period,  it  seems  an 
historical  truth  that  —  so  far  from  the  Cuban 
policy  of  the  United  States  having  been  one  of 
aggression  —  few  nations  have  shown  more  good 
temper  toward  a  troublesome  neighbor,  more 
patience  with  diplomatic  delays,  or  more  self- 
restraint  over  a  coveted  possession.  Even 
slavery,  though  it  could  prevent,  could  not  pro- 
cure, annexation.  The  Cuban  controversy  was 
not  sought  by  the  United  States  ;  it  arose  out 
of  the  geographical  and  political  conditions  of 
America.  As  the  French  orator  said  in  1793, 
"  I  do  not  accuse  the  king ;  I  do  not  accuse  the 
nation ;  I  do  not  accuse  the  people ;  I  accuse 
the  situation." 


BROTHER  JONATHAN'S  COLONIES 


43.     Concep- 
tion  of  a 
"  Colony." 


What  is 
essential? 


"  Mankind  is  divided  into  three  great  classes," 
says  a  learned  German  follower  of  the  philoso- 
pher Hegel:  "those  who  are  Hegelians  and  are 
proud  of  it ;  those  who  are  Hegelians  and  pro- 
test against  it;  and  those  who  are  Hegelians 
without  knowing  it."  In  their  colonial  policy 
the  nations  of  the  earth  might  be  put  into  three 
similar  categories :  those  which,  like  Germany, 
are  proud  of  their  colonization ;  those  which, 
like  England,  colonize  with  apprehension ;  and 
the  United  States,  which  for  more  than  a  hun- 
dred years  has  been  a  great  colonial  power  with- 
out suspecting  it.  Because  we  have  heretofore 
had  no  far-lying  islands,  or  yellow  or  brown 
nations  of  dependents,  we  are  now  accused  of 
entering  on  "  a  colonial  policy "  of  which  we 
understand  neither  the  responsibilities  or  the 
dangers ;  but  though  the  term  "colonies"  sounds 
strange,  the  thing  itself  is  as  familiar  to  us  as 
vote  by  ballot. 

What  is  the  essential  in  the  conception  of  a 
colony  ?  Is  it  anything  more  than  a  tract  of 
territory  subordinate  to  the  inhabitants  of  a 
134 


Conception  135 

different  tract  of  country,  and  ruled  by  authori- 
ties wholly  or  in  part  responsible  to  the  main 
administration  instead  of  to  the  people  of  their 
own  region  ?  Distance  is  not  necessary  to  make 
a  colony :  Algeria  is  only  twenty-four  hours' 
steaming  from  Marseilles,  yet  is  a  French 
colony.  Geographical  separation  from  the  home 
country  is  not  necessary  in  true  colonization, 
for  Siberia  is  one  of  the  greatest  examples  of 
a  modem  colony.  A  hegira  of  settlers  over 
the  seas  is  not  necessary  for  colonization :  is 
not  Java  a  colony,  though  only  60,000  of  its 
24,000,000  people  are  Dutch }  Arbitrary  con- 
trol is  no  necessary  part  of  colonization,  for 
nowhere  in  the  world  is  there  greater  freedom 
of  local  government  than  in  Australia.  Alien 
or  inferior  races  are  not  necessary  for  colonial 
life :  Newfoundland  has  no  Indians,  yet  has 
been  a  colony  for  centuries.  The  important 
thing  about  colonies  is  the  coexistence  of  two 
kinds  of  government,  with  an  ultimate  control 
in  one  geographical  region  and  dependence  in 
the  other;  and  since  1784  there  has  never  been 
a  year  when  in  the  United  States  there  have  not 
been  side  by  side  such  a  ruling  nation  and  such 
subject  colonies  ;  only  we  have  chosen  to  call 
them  "territories." 

Even  that  term,  perhaps,  carries  with  it  an  idea  Our domestic 
of  settled  representative  government,  of  inchoate  Colonies, 
statehood ;   but  we   have,  or   have   had,  nearly 


136  National  Colonies 

every  variety  of  colonies  known  to  history,  from 
recently  occupied  conquests,  like  Porto  Rico, 
with  no  regime  except  the  will  of  the  military 
commander,  through  all  the  gradations  up  to  a 
community  like  New  Mexico,  long  on  the  verge 
of  becoming  a  state.  We  have  military  stations, 
such  as  Fort  SneUing,  which  are  almost  as  free 
from  any  near-by  control  as  Gibraltar ;  we  have 
had  in  Liberia  a  distant  protectorate  as  much  a 
dependency  of  the  United  States  as  Sierra 
Leone  is  of  Great  Britain ;  our  Indian  agents 
have  a  status  very  like  that  of  British  residents 
in  the  native  states  of  India;  our  control  of 
Samoa  resembles  that  of  Belgium  in  the  Congo 
Free  State ;  the  Aves  Islands  and  Navassa  are 
in  their  political  status  very  like  the  English 
Bahamas ;  the  French  in  Madagascar  have  set 
up  a  system  resembling  our  control  of  Alaska ; 
and  the  great  self-governing  Dominion  of  Can- 
ada is  not  so  completely  subject  to  home  control 
as  our  own  Territory  of  Oklahoma. 
American  Notwithstanding  the  variety  of  our  dependen- 

cies, no  one  doubts  that,  in  practice,  the  colonial 
aims,  methods,  and  purposes  of  Brother  Jona- 
than have  been  very  different  from  those  of 
other  great  powers,  although  the  foundations  of 
his  system  are  much  the  same.  Germany, 
France,  Holland,  Portugal,  England,  are  small, 
thickly- populated  countries,  with  boundaries 
pressed  close  together  by  centuries  of  hammer- 


Peculiarities. 


Peculiarities  137 

ing  wars ;  hence  they  are  forced  to  seek  their 
colonial  expansion  on  other  continents  or  in 
other  oceans.  We,  on  the  other  hand,  have, 
until  very  recently,  been  able  to  expand  in 
regions  almost  uninhabited,  and  near  our  own 
doors.  All  European  nations  have  found  it  a 
problem  how  to  regulate  the  trade  of  their 
colonies,  and  hard  to  enforce  their  regulations; 
but  our  colonies  have  heretofore  been  simply 
admitted  into  our  unlimited  interstate  free  trade, 
and  have  desired  no  special  status  in  foreign 
commerce. 

Foreign  colonies  have  always  been  pulling  Good 
their  home  countries  into  wars,  or,  at  best,  into  ^'■'^*''- 
international  scrapes ;  Brother  Jonathan  has 
never  had  to  fight  for  the  defence  of  his  colo- 
nies, and  the  Utah  troubles  of  the  fifties  are  the 
only  example  of  the  rebellion  of  a  colony  of  the 
United  States.  English  and  Russian  statesmen 
are  at  this  moment  brooding  over  the  question 
whether  their  outlying  possessions  would  be 
loyal  in  case  of  war ;  never,  since  the  Civil 
War,  have  we  doubted  that  our  colonies  would 
stand  by  us  in  any  crisis.  The  English  in  India 
are  100,000  against  300,000,000  natives;  our 
red,  black,  and  white  aliens  altogether  make  up 
less  than  a  fourth  part  of  our  population.  The 
iron  subjection  of  dependencies  to  a  distant 
rule  is  a  principle  as  old  as  the  Phoenician  trad- 
ing posts  on  the  Mediterranean ,  but  from  the 


138  National  Colonies 

beginning  of   our  federal  history  up  to   1898, 

Americans  have  accepted  it  as  an  axiom  that  all 

Colonies  to     our  colonies  were  eventually  to  become  states  of 

slate7°^"^"^  the    Union.      Notwithstanding   the   talk   about 

imperial  federation,   it  is   plain  that   England 

must  continue  to  have   dependent  colonies  so 

long  as  English  hearts  hold  their  courage ;  but, 

up  to  the  Spanish  War,  Brother  Jonathan  never 

looked  in  the  face  the  prospect  of  a  Union  in 

which  there  should  be  permanent  colonies. 

43.   Anaiy-        With  all  due  allowance  for  special  conditions, 

"^  ^^  the  truth  remains  that  the  United  States  has  had 

Amencan 

Colonization,  a  long  and  varied  experience  of  colonization ;  and 
whatever  is  done  in  the  future  will  be  based 
on  the  habits  of  the  past.  For  good  or  evil  we 
have  taken  on  ourselves  the  task  of  governing 
new  dependencies.  How  far  does  the  history 
of  our  own  territorial  system  throw  light  on  the 
capacity  of  Americans  to  perform  that  task } 
For  convenience  of  treatment  the  history  of  our 
colonization  may  be  taken  up  under  the  follow- 
ing topics:  (i)  Foundation  of  a  territorial  sys- 
tem ( 1 780-1 803).  (2)  Internal  colonies  in  the 
West  (1803- 1 900).  (3)  Absorption  of  Louisiana 
(1803-1812).  (4)  Florida  (18 19-182 1).  (5)  Ore- 
gon ( 1 803-1 848).  (6)  Liberia  (18 17- 186 1). 
(7)  Indian  reservations  (1830-1900).  (8)  Terri- 
torial slavery  (1820- 1862).  (9)  Utah  ( 1 847-1 896). 
(10)  The  South  during  reconstruction  (1865- 
1873).     (11)  Outlying  colonies  ( 1 854-1900). 


Foundations  1 39 

Notwithstanding  that  the  Revolution  was  a  44-  Founda- 
protest  against  a  colonial  regime,  the  model  for  xemtoriai 
the  original  American  territorial  system,  which  System, 
has  so  far  been  little  altered,  was  the  previous 
colonial  administration  of  Great  Britain.  That 
system  in  most  colonies  included  five  principles: 
the  right  to  annex  territory  without  the  consent 
of  its  inhabitants ;  the  right  to  dispose  of  wild 
lands ;  control  of  the  aborigines ;  allowance  of 
personal  rights  and  privileges,  guaranteed  by  a 
charter ;  and  an  administration  consisting  of  an 
appointed  governor,  appointed  judges,  and  a 
legislature  whose  statutes  were  subject  to  the 
veto  of  the  governor,  and  also  to  annulment  by 
the  home  government.  Every  one  of  these 
principles  was  adopted  in  the  earliest  territorial 
arrangements  of  the  United  States,  and  most 
of  them  are  still  parts  of  our  colonial  organ- 
ization. We  inherited  also,  and  have  since 
enlarged,  that  double  population  which  all  over 
the  globe  embarrasses  European  colonies,  —  a 
white  race  in  the  midst  of  inferior  native  races, 
—  and  hence  have  always  recognized  a  double 
system  of  law,  with  the  presumption  always  in 
favor  of  the  white  settler.  To  this  was  added 
the  special  complication  caused  by  the  status  of 
the  negro  slaves — always  a  subject  of  dissension 
in  America,  and  of  interference  from  abroad. 

The  right  to  annex  territory  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  inhabitants  goes  back  to  the  Virgin- 


140 


National  Colonies 


Popular 
Votes  in 
America. 


Ownership 
of  Land. 


ian  invasion  of  the  Northwest  Territory  in  1778 ; 
since  that  time  the  consent  of  previously  existing 
independent  governments  has  been  obtained  in 
two  cases  —  Texas  and  Hawaii;  but  there  has 
not  been  an  instance  in  the  history  of  the  United 
States  in  which  a  popular  vote  has  been  taken 
by  the  inhabitants  of  an  annexed  region.  That 
principle  of  popular  consent  was  put  into  the 
treaty  with  Denmark  for  the  annexation  of  St. 
Thomas  in  1867,  and  a  vote  was  actually  taken; 
but  the  project  eventually  failed.  By  purchase, 
conquest,  or  voluntary  union,  the  United  States 
has  exercised  all  the  rights  of  annexing  new 
colonies  which  have  ever  been  enjoyed  by  any 
colonizing  power. 

The  ownership  and  disposition  of  lands  in 
colonies  has  also  been  a  principle  of  the  federal 
government  ever  since  the  extinction  of  the 
state  claims  to  the  Northwest  in  1784.  While 
recognizing  previous  private  holdings,  and  while 
making  various  deductions  for  state  reserva- 
tions, the  immense  areas  of  wild  lands  have  been 
as  completely  national  property  as  the  German 
"  Hinterland  "  in  Africa,  or  the  Russian  hold- 
ings in  Siberia.  The  principal  change  from 
earlier  colonial  conditions  is  that  the  United 
States  has  never  tried  to  exact  quit-rents,  and 
has  seldom  leased  public  lands  ;  it  has  followed 
the  earlier  English  colonial  principle  of  putting 
the  ownership  as  speedily  as  possible  into  pri- 


Early  Charters  141 

vate  hands;  and  during  the  last  fifty  years  it 
has,  by  preference,  sold  or  given  lands  in  small 
parcels  to  actual  occupants. 

The  settlement  of  the  lands  under  national  Form  of 
direction   has  made  it  necessary  to  provide  a  ^^«'^°™«"*- 
system  of  colonial  government  till  the  territo- 
ries were  ready  to  enter  the  Union  as  states. 
Here  again  the  plan  was  simply  to  follow  the 
time-honored  English  idea  of  granting  a  written 
charter,  in  which  personal  rights  should  be  de- 
fined, and  a  form  of  government  indicated.    The 
germ  of   our  colonial  system  is  a  vote  of  the 
Continental  Congress  of  October  10,  1780,  set-  Vote  of  1780. 
ting  forth  the  conditions  on  which  the  Western 
lands  should  be  held  and  the  frontier  communi- 
ties governed. 

The  pledge  thus  made  was  carried  out  in  the 
ordinance  passed  by  Congress,  April  23,  1784,  ordiuanceof 
which  provided  that  Congress  should  legislate  ^784- 
for  the   new  territories,   but  that    the   people 
should  also  have  a  local  legislature,  and  eventu- 
ally a  delegate  in  Congress,  and  should  finally 
be  admitted  to  the  Union.     In  1787  the  North-  Ordinance  of 
west  Ordinance  systematized  and  enlarged  these  ^'^^' 
principles,   and    was    the    first    great    colonial 
charter  granted  by  the  United  States.     In  es- 
sentials, the  Ordinance  resembles  the  colonial 
charters  of  Massachusetts,  or  the  frame  of  gov- 
ernment of  Pennsylvania.* 
>  See  S  60. 


142 


National  Colonies 


Later  Organ- 
ization. 


Unchartered 
Colonies. 


Nebraska, 
1820-1854. 

California, 
1848-1850. 


District  of 
Columbia. 


From  that  day  to  this  the  acts  of  Congress, 
creating  territories,  have  followed  the  main 
principles  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  Nor  has 
the  control  by  the  federal  government  been 
nominal ;  governors  and  judges  have  been  ap- 
pointed, instructed,  and  sometimes  removed  by 
the  President,  and  territorial  statutes  have  re- 
peatedly been  disapproved  by  Congress. 

In  cases  where  the  population  was  inconsider- 
able, the  federal  government  has  often,  how- 
ever, not  felt  itself  bound  to  create  a  territorial 
organization  on  either  of  the  two  models  set 
forth  in  the  Northwest  Ordinance  and  later 
statutes;  hence  there  have  been  numerous  in- 
stances in  which  we  have  held  colonies  without 
a  charter.  For  instance,  the  territory  west  of 
the  Missouri  remained  without  any  organization 
from  1820  to  1854;  California  never  had  an 
organized  territorial  government,  though  for 
four  years  held  as  a  national  possession  ;  and 
Alaska  has  for  thirty-three  years  remained  an 
unchartered  colony.  A  case  perhaps  even  more 
striking  is  that  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  which 
has  never  had  a  distinct  representative  govern- 
ment, except  from  1871  to  1874,  and  which  is 
now  administered  by  commissioners  appointed 
by  the  President ;  it  is  taxed  by  act  of  Congress, 
without  the  sHghtest  representation,  even  by  a 
delegate  in  Congress  ;  and  it  has  no  control  of 
its   own   local  affairs.       From    the   beginning, 


Organization  1 43 

therefore,  a  special  arbitrary  regime  has  been 
applied  to  some  colonies  which  were  too  sparsely 
populated  or  too  disturbed  to  sustain  any  repre- 
sentative government  of  their  own. 

For  some  years  after  the  great  charter  of  the  45-  internal 
Northwest  Ordinance,  the  growth  of  new  colo-  the*West° 
nies  was  slow ;  but  with  the  birth  of  the  nine-  1803-1900. 
teenth  century  the  feeble  American  communities 
began  to  experience  an  amazing  movement  from 
the  Eastern  world  to  the  Western  world,  and  Western 
from  the  Atlantic  coast  to  the  interior  valley.  Settlement. 
The  "  Flight  of   a  Tartar   Tribe "  is  no  more 
romantic ;  the  invasions  of  Goths  and  Visigoths 
were   less   far-reaching.     In   all  essentials  the 
conditions  of  our  first  colonial  settlements  were 
reproduced   and   magnified.      A  tract   of   land 
which  last  week  was  a  virgin  forest,  and  yester- 
day a  backwoods  farm,  is  to-day  a  village,  to- 
morrow a  county-seat,  next  month  a  territorial 
capital,  and  next  year  the  seat  of  government  in 
a  rich  and  populous  state. 

The  transformation  is  not  solely  the  work  of 
Americans  born  :  the  raw  Irish  lad  is  soon  to  be 
the  owner  of  a  block  of  houses ;  the  runaway 
German  apprentice  will  shortly  build  a  music 
hall ;  the  Norwegian  ploughman  has  the  most 
valuable  farm  in  the  county ;  and  the  poor 
English  weaver  lives  to  see  his  children  name 
the  manufacturing  city  which  he  has  founded 
after  the  Devonshire  hamlet  in  which  he  was 


144  National  Colonies 

born.  To  reach  these  flourishing  colonies,  roads 
push  themselves  into  the  wild  frontier,  and  lakes 
and  rivers  bear  the  products  eastward  to  the  sea- 
board. Before  the  old  people  have  left  off  grum- 
bling over  the  unaccustomed  hardships  of  frontier 
life,  their  children  are  moving  out  of  the  log 
cabins,  and  are  putting  the  old  folks  into  homes 
of  such  comfort  as  they  never  dreamed  of  in 
their  peasant  days. 

To  be  sure,  the  same  process  has  gone  for- 
ward in  Canada,  New  Zealand,  Australia,  South 
Africa,  and  Siberia;  but  nowhere  on  such  a 
scale  nor  with  such  a  variety  of  race  elements. 
During  the  eighty  years  from  1820  about  nine- 
teen million  foreign  immigrants  have  come  to 
our  shores ;  and  whatever  their  adherence  to 
their  original  national  character,  their  children, 
or  at  least  their  grandchildren,  are  no  longer 
Disappear-  colonists,  but  Complete  Americans.  The  frontier 
ing  Frontier,  j^^g  repeatedly  been  transformed  from  a  group 
of  colonies  to  a  belt  of  the  states  of  the  Union, 
which  again  send  out  new  swarms  to  plant  new 
colonies.  With  all  the  unfavorable  conditions  of 
a  growth  too  rapid  to  be  refined,  the  result  has 
been  a  lesson  to  the  world  in  the  art  of  practical 
colonization.  Montana  is  a  rude  community, 
but  it  has  got  farther  forward  in  civilization  in 
thirty  years  than  Cuba  in  thirty  decades.  North 
Dakota  needs  polishing,  but  it  is  a  better  place 
and  has  better  promise  than  the  French  model 


The  JVest  145 

colony  of  Algeria.  When  Brother  Jonathan 
draws  a  long  breath,  as  he  begins  his  work  of 
shaping  a  new  batch  of  communities,  let  him 
remember  that  out  of  the  most  diverse  white 
colonists  he  had  made  a  race  of  Americans ! 

With  the  admission  of  the  states  of  Tennessee 
in  1796,  and  Ohio  in  1802,  the  machinery  of 
colonial  government  was  in  full  operation ;  and 
before  1822  Indiana,  Illinois,  Alabama,  Missis- 
sippi, and  Missouri  passed  through  the  four  suc- 
cessive stages  of  unorganized  colonies,  of  colonies 
with  appointed  lawmakers,  of  colonies  with  a 
local  legislature,  and  of  full-fledged  states. 

Meanwhile  the  United  States  had  advanced  46-  AUen 
another  step  in  colonization,  by  the  annexation  loi^sLiul 
of  large  territories  already  inhabited  by  people  1803-1813. 
of  alien  races,  languages,  religions,  and  laws. 
The  annexation  of  Louisiana,  speedily  followed 
by  that  of  the  Floridas,  made  Frenchmen  and 
Spaniards  subject  to  the  control  of  Congress. 

The  critical  question  of  the  temporary  govern-  Authority 
ment  of  the  territory  of  Louisiana  was  settled  by  oreaniM-° 
a  practice  which  became  a  precedent  for  Florida  tion. 
in    1 82 1,  and  was  suggested  for  California  in  ^   3-1804. 
1848;    Congress    providing  that   the   President 
might  designate  some  one  to  take  the  functions 
previously  conferred  on  the  Spanish  or  French 
administrators.     Claiborne  was  therefore  vested 
with  "all  the  powers  .  .  .  heretofore  held  and 
exercised  by  the  governor  general  and  intendant 


146  National  Colonies 

of  the  province "  ;  and  he  proclaimed  to  the 
Louisianians  that  "  the  American  people  receive 
you  as  brothers,  and  will  hasten  to  extend  to 
you  a  participation  in  the  inestimable  rights 
which  have  formed  the  basis  of  their  own  unex- 
ampled prosperity."  As  soon  as  Congress  could 
First  Louis-  reach  the  matter  a  regular  territorial  act  was 
i8cl^^''        passed,  March  26,  1804,  on  the  general  model 

of  the  first  stage  of  the  Northwest  Territory. 
Discontent  In  October,  1804,  three  unofficial  commission- 

isi^i^r*'  ^''^'  appointed  by  a  public  meeting  at  New  Or- 
leans, appeared  at  Washington  to  voice  the 
bitter  protests  of  the  Louisianians;  they  com- 
plained that  their  province  had  been  divided 
into  two  territories,  that  their  slave  trade  was 
forbidden,  that  they  had  only  a  limited  right  of 
trial  by  jury,  that  their  land  titles  were  ques- 
tioned, that  their  official  language  was  changed, 
that  their  civil  law  was  administered  by  judges 
who  did  not  know  civil  law,  that  they  did  not 
like  their  governor,  and  had  no  legal  appeal 
from  his  decisions.  It  was  the  period  commem- 
orated by  the  local  artist  in  Cable's  novel  with 
his  "  pigshoe  of  Lou-isiana  rif-using  to  hanter 
the  h-Union. 
Complaints.  In  the  long  indictment  prepared  by  the  French 
inhabitants  of  Louisiana  may  be  recognized  most 
of  the  complaints  which  have  recurred  whenever 
the  United  States  has  colonized  former  French 
or  Spanish  territory :  the  new  citizens  naturally 


Louisiana  147 

claim  all  the  privileges  of  the  old  regime,  and 
also  all  the  benefits  of  the  American  political 
system.  However  advantageous  the  English 
common  law  is  in  criminal  cases,  it  sets  up 
principles  of  inheritance  and  property  rights 
very  different  from  those  to  which  the  Latin 
races  have  always  adhered.  On  the  other  hand, 
in  demanding  an  elective  legislature  instead  of 
the  small  appointed  council,  the  Louisianians 
clamored  for  what  they  had  never  possessed  for 
a  moment  under  the  old  regime. 

Congress   passed   another    act,   January   28,  second 
1805,  granting  them  the  second  stage  of  terri-  ^-o'^'siana 

.    ,  .  ,  ,         .  ,         Act.  1805. 

tonal  government,  with  an  elective  assembly, 
and  promising  them  speedy  admission  as  a  state. 
Again  the  new  citizens  protested  because  they 
were  not  immediately  accorded  statehood,  with 
senators  and  a  representative  on  the  same  terms 
as  Massachusetts  or  Virginia.  Nor  had  they 
long  to  wait.  April  10,  18 12,  when  the  popu-  Admission 
lation  was  still  only  85,cxx),  Louisiana  was  ad-  ^"^^^  *^"' 
mitted  to  the  Union. 

When  the  Floridas  were  finally  annexed  by  47.  Alien 
the  Treaty  of  18 19,  very  much  the  same  trouble  pi^ri^aV" 
came  up  again.     As  in  the  case  of  Louisiana,  1819-1831. 
the  inhabitants  were   promised   religious   free- 
dom, the  right  to  remove  into  Spanish  dominions 
if  they  chose,  or  to  be   "incorporated  in   the 
Union  of  the  United  States  .  .  .  and  admitted 
to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  privileges,  rights, 


148 


National  Colonies 


Governor 
General  An- 
drew Jack- 
son, 1821. 


and  immunities  of  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States."  After  some  experience  of  the  pocos 
dias  delays  of  Spanish  administration,  the  prov- 
ince was  duly  transferred  to  General  Andrew 
Jackson,  July  17,  1821 ;  and  he  at  once  gave 
notice  that  for  the  time  being  the  old  laws  con- 
tinued in  force,  and  the  old  civil  officers  would 
continue  their  functions. 

Under  a  commission  as  governor,  Jackson 
was  authorized  by  the  President  to  exercise 
"  all  the  powers  and  authorities  heretofore  ex- 
ercised by  the  Governor  and  Captain  General 
and  Intendant  of  Cuba,  and  by  the  Governors 
of  East  and  West  Florida,  within  the  said 
provinces,"  except  the  laying  of  new  taxes  and 
the  granting  of  lands.  This  fine  bold  position 
suited  Jackson,  and  within  three  months  Colonel 
Callava  made  bitter  complaint  of  the  liberal 
interpretation  given  to  the  powers  of  "Captain 
General  and  Governor,"  Callava  declared  that 
^1^^°^"^^'  Jackson  threatened  to  put  him  into  a  dungeon, 
a  suggestion  "  which  could  not  but  raise  a  blush 
in  my  face,  and  disorder  my  stomach  in  the 
very  act  of  eating,  .  .  .  and  I  felt  myself  at- 
tacked by  a  deadly  pain."  The  wicked  threat, 
so  distressing  to  a  former  governor  with  imper- 
fect digestion,  was  carried  out  by  soldiers  who 
"assaulted  the  house"  of  Callava,  "broke  the 
fence,  .  .  .  removed  his  mosquito  net,"  and 
then   escorted   him   before   the   terrible   "  Don 


Callava 


East  Florida  149 

Andrew  Jackson."  That  potentate,  "  with  much 
violence  and  furious  gestures,"  harangued  his 
prisoner  for  two  hours,  in  a  language  which 
Callava,  perhaps  to  his  own  peace  of  mind,  did 
not  understand,  and  finally  the  governor  in  esse 
sent  the  governor  in  fuisse  to  prison. 

Behind  the  comic  side  of  this  episode  there  Fromentin 
were  two  issues  of  some  importance.  Callava  i8«f°^*"''' 
was  trying  to  carry  away  some  documents  which 
Jackson  considered  the  public  property  of  his 
colony ;  and  Jackson  was  exercising  authority 
such  as  no  person  in  time  of  peace  could  pos- 
sibly have  claimed  in  any  other  part  of  the 
United  States,  through  troops  which  could  no- 
where else  be  used  for  such  purposes.  Since 
this  is  a  difficulty  of  a  kind  likely  to  occur  in 
our  new  possessions,  it  is  worthy  of  note  that 
Fromentin,  the  federal  judge,  attempted  to 
release  Callava  by  a  habeas  corpus,  which  Jack- 
son disregarded ;  and  that  Monroe's  Cabinet 
was  much  perturbed  by  the  happening.  John 
Quincy  Adams,  however,  declared  that  the 
argument  of  separation  between  civil  and  mili- 
tary power  was  not  "  suited  to  the  occasion. 
We  have  acquired  a  province  heretofore  gov- 
erned by  military  principles  and  by  military 
rule ;  ...  all  the  power  formerly  exercised  by 
the  supreme  rulers  of  the  province  was  vested 
in  the  governor."  In  1822  this  extraordinary 
use  of  arbitrary  Spanish  principles  within  the 


I50 


National  Colonies 


48.  Anoma- 
lous Colony 
in  Oregon, 
1803-1848. 


Lessons  in 
Colonization. 


free  United  States  was  discontinued,  by  the  or- 
ganization of  a  regular  territorial  government. 

A  very  curious  kind  of  colonization  was  that 
of  Oregon.  Here  alone,  in  our  whole  territo- 
rial history,  is  a  region  claimed,  occupied,  and 
eventually  held  as  a  colony  planted  in  a  no- 
man's-land.  From  the  Lewis  and  Clark  ex- 
pedition of  1 803- 1 807  to  the  Oregon  Act 
of  1848  there  was  never  any  government  on 
the  Pacific  coast  except  the  voluntary  associa- 
tion of  neighbors  in  local  affairs ;  and  from 
18 1 8  to  1846  there  was  a  joint  occupancy  with 
Great  Britain,  from  which  came  great  dangers 
and  long-standing  troubles,  but  no  colonial  gov- 
ernment. England  extended  her  laws  to  the 
region  in  1821  ;  but  the  growing  American 
settlements  had  neither  governors,  courts,  nor 
legislatures. 

For  Brother  Jonathan  the  lesson  of  Louisiana, 
Florida,  and  Oregon  is  that  pitfalls  lie  ready  for 
those  who  too  hastily  try  to  adjust  new  colonies 
into  the  American  system  of  government.  In 
every  one  of  these  cases  the  work  of  civilization 
was  finally  successful,  but  there  are  still  traces 
of  the  old  order  of  things.  Louisiana  to  this 
day  has  a  special  system  of  civil  law ;  Spanish 
titles  still  sometimes  vex  the  courts  of  Florida ; 
and  the  Oregon  controversy  was  not  finally  set- 
tled till  1872. 

While  Brother  Jonathan  was  adding  to  his 


Oregon  1 5 1 

territory,  and  gaining  experience  in  coloniza-  49.  Negro 
tion,  a  movement  had  begun  for  ridding  him  L?beru**' 
of  a  part  of  his  children,  by  colonizing  the  free  1817-1861. 
blacks  in  Africa.  The  first  trouble  was  to  find 
a  part  of  the  earth  where  persons  would  be 
received  who,  as  Jefferson  neatly  phrased  it, 
were  "  not  malefactors,  but  guilty  of  what  the 
safety  of  society  under  actual  circumstances 
obliges  us  to  treat  as  a  crime  " —  that  is,  men 
who  were  determined  to  be  free.  In  1820  the  Colonization 
first  realization  of  the  idea  was  carried  out  Society,  iSao. 
by  President  Monroe,  in  connection  with  the 
American  Colonization  Society,  when  eighty- 
six  negroes  were  sent  to  the  African  coast. 
From  that  time  for  many  years  the  United 
States  took,  in  the  scattered  settlements  first 
known  as  Liberia  and  Monrovia,  an  interest 
summed  up  by  Amos  Kendall  as  follows :  "  To 
colonize  captured  Africans,  to  build  homes  for 
them,  ...  to  purchase  ships  for  their  conven- 
ience, to  build  forts  for  their  protection,  to 
supply  them  with  arms  and  munitions  of  war, 
to  enlist  troops  to  guard  them,  and  to  employ 
the  army  and  navy  in  their  defence."  If  this 
be  an  exaggerated  statement,  it  is  certainly  true 
that  the  permanent  site  of  the  colony  —  at  Cape 
Montserado — was  secured  by  Lieutenant  Stock- 
ton of  the  United  States  ship  Alligator,  and  that 
the  United  States  paid  for  supplies  to  keep  the 
colonists  alive. 


152 


National  Colonies 


In  1837  the  people  of  these  African  settle- 
Liberia  a  ments  constituted  themselves  the  commonwealth 
w^thT847.  o^  Liberia,  and  in  1847  the  little  state  declared 
itself  sovereign  and  independent.  Like  many 
other  small  nations,  Liberia  soon  found  herself 
involved  in  a  quarrel  with  Great  Britain.  Had 
the  settlement  been  one  of  white  men,  there  can 
be  little  doubt  that  the  United  States  would 
have  acknowledged  the  duty  of  protecting  it. 
As  it  was,  the  administration  of  President  Polk 
refused  even  to  acknowledge  Liberia  as  an 
independent  nation.  England,  however,  came 
to  terms  with  the  little  land,  agreed  to  respect 
the  "sovereignty"  of  Liberia,  and  gave  her  a 
cutter  with  four  guns  —  all  exactly  like  a  picture 
in  Punch;  but  not  till  1862  did  the  United 
States  recognize  Liberia  as  a  sister  nation.  In 
1884  Secretary  Frelinghuysen  said  that  "  Libe- 
ria, although  not  a  colony  of  the  United  States, 
began  its  independent  career  as  an  offshoot  of 
the  country,  which  bears  to  it  a  ^w^jZ-parental 
relationship." 

The  colony  of  Liberia  is  almost  the  only 
example  of  an  eddy  of  American  civilization 
turning  eastward ;  and  it  was  too  feeble  a 
movement  to  affect  either  slavery  or  territorial 
rights  in  America  or  Africa.  President  Lincoln 
made  an  attempt  to  revive  the  scheme  by 
placing  a  new  colony  in  Central  America, 
and  was  much  disappointed  at  the  refusal  of 


Liberia  rec- 
ognized, 
1863. 


Lincoln's 
Plans,  1864. 


Liberia  1 53 

the  Central  American  colonies  to  receive  free 
negroes.  Perhaps  the  Liberians  may  some  day 
be  stirred  up  by  the  good  fortune  of  the  Hawaii- 
ans  to  offer  themselves  to  be  a  recognized  col- 
ony of  Brother  Jonathan's.  At  present  our 
relation  to  Liberia  is  practically  that  of  a 
protectorate. 

Much  has  been  said  of  late  about  the  difficul-  50.  Colonies 
ties  of  governing  inferior  races,  especially  in  a  in^i^s""" 
colony,  and  we  are  left  to  infer  that  for  such  1830-1900- 
a  task  Brother  Jonathan  is  both  raw  and  clumsy. 
To  say  nothing  of  the  negro  question,  we  have 
had  on  our  hands,  as  inhabitants  of  our  colonies 
ever  since  1775,  the  Indians  —  pagans,  savages,  Foundation 
enemies,  splendid  fighting  men,  yet  wards  of  °  °"'^  °" 
the  nation.    We  have  never  adopted  the  system, 
so  successful  in  Cuba  in  the  fifteenth  century 
and  in  Australia  in  the  nineteenth,  of  practi- 
cally exterminating  the  troublesome  race ;    we 
have  had  to  grapple  with  the  same  difficulties 
as  the  English  in  New  Zealand  and  the  Ger- 
mans in  Africa;   and  we  have  been  no  more 
successful  than  they. 

Toward  these  wild  men  the  federal  govern-  Attempt  at 
ment  has  always  had  definite  and  righteous  '^'^'*<*''* 
principles.  It  has  recognized  the  Indian's  right 
of  occupancy  in  his  lands ;  it  has  tried  to  keep 
him  separate  from  white  settlers ;  and  it  has 
looked  forward  to  his  civilization.  Yet  the 
Canadians,   the   Mexicans,  and   the   Brazilians 


154 


National  Colonies 


Reservation 
System. 


Indian  Ter- 
ritory. 


have  been  more  successful  than  we  in  harmo- 
nizing their  natives  with  their  general  system  of 
government.  Our  trouble  has  been  that,  in  every 
attempt  to  give  the  Indians  such  a  status  in  our 
colonial  system  as  is  occupied  by  the  Ceylonese 
under  English  rule,  or  the  Javanese  under 
Dutch  rule,  we  have  run  up  against  a  total 
difference  of  conditions.  Few  of  the  Indians 
are  or  ever  will  be  tillers  of  the  soil,  and  hence 
ten  white  families  can  live  on  a  tract  too  small 
for  one  Indian  family ;  and  most  of  the  tribes 
have  no  traditional  social  organization  which 
can  be  used  as  a  foundation  for  modern  life. 

The  reservation  system,  finally  put  in  force 
about  1830,  has  been  the  essential  feature  of 
our  Indian  colonies,  for  it  provides  at  the  same 
time  personal  protection,  a  kind  of  local  govern- 
ment, and  ease  of  national  administration. 
About  1830  the  government  adopted  the  sys- 
tem of  closed  reservations.  The  defect  of  this 
system  as  now  applied  to  nearly  all  of  the  Indian 
tribes  is  best  seen  in  the  present  condition  of 
the  so-called  "five  civilized  nations"  —  one  of 
the  most  perplexing  of  Brother  Jonathan's  colo- 
nial experiments.  The  Indian  Territory  has  a 
legal  status  very  like  that  of  the  native  states 
of  India :  there  is  a  little  legislature  and  an 
executive ;  there  is  a  tribal  title  to  the  lands  of 
the  Territory;  but  everything  is  in  confusion. 
Legally  the  lands  are  held  in  common,  but  in 


Indians  1 55 

one  of  the  tribes  about  half  the  land  is  actually 
possessed  by  sixty-one  persons.  Legally  none 
but  persons  of  Indian  blood  can  share  in  the 
privileges  of  the  colony;  but  if  a  white  man 
marries  an  Indian,  he  thereby  becomes  an 
Indian,  and  their  children  are  "  Indians  "  and 
share  in  the  tribal  property.  Legally  no  one 
can  give  title  to  the  lands  except  the  tribe,  yet 
there  are  towns  of  five  thousand  people  plumped 
down  on  Indian  lands  without  a  shadow  of 
tribal  grant.  Legally  the  Territory  should  be 
reserved  for  Indians ;  actually  there  are  nearly 
five  times  as  many  whites  as  Indians.  Legally 
crime  should  be  repressed  by  the  United  States 
judges  in  adjoining  states  and  territories;  ac- 
tually, according  to  Mr.  Dawes,  one  judge  has  in 
fifteen  years  sentenced  a  thousand  desperadoes 
to  be  hanged,  and  the  supply  seems  undimin- 
ished. 

For  the  intolerable  condition  of  affairs  in  the  Domestic 
Indian  Territory  there  are  several  reasons,  all  ^^^^^ 
of  which  may  suggest  the  need  of  wisdom  in 
organizing  colonies  over  the  seas.  The  Indians 
have  for  nearly  a  century  been  treated  as  "  do- 
mestic dependent  nations  "  with  whom  treaties 
could  be  made  ;  and  yet  they  have  not  the  num- 
bers or  the  stability  to  protect  their  lands  or 
themselves  from  the  aggressions  of  the  white 
so-called  "intruders."  On  the  other  hand,  the 
five  "  nations "  claim  to  own  grazing,  mineral. 


156  National  Colonies 

and  coal  lands  of  such  value  that  it  is  a  piece  of 
luck  to  be  born  a  Cherokee  baby.  The  tribal 
system  of  landholding  is  not  suited  to  the 
conditions  of  the  Indians  themselves,  and  the 
United  States  has  made  great  efforts  to  induce 
them,  both  in  the  Indian  Territory  and  in  other 
reservations,  to  accept  land  in  severalty ;  but  if 
this  is  done  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  in  the 
long  run  most  of  the  Indians  will  part  with  their 
individual  lands  and  be  left  homeless. 

To  be  sure,  the  deadlock  in  Indian  affairs  is  not 
due  to  the  injustice  of  the  government  or  to  the 
rapacity  of  officials,  but  to  the  character  of  the 
Indians  and  of  the  frontiersman.  In  his  efforts 
to  prevent  fraud  Brother  Jonathan  has  so  wound 
Red  Tape.  himself  up  in  red  tape  that,  in  order  to  issue  to 
a  squaw  a  paper  of  pins,  the  words  "  paper  of 
pins"  must  be  written  out  in  long  hand  (no 
abbreviations)  in  the  books  of  the  government 
twenty-seven  times  before  the  little  pointed 
engines  of  civilization  can  begin  the  work.  The 
inability  of  the  United  States  either  to  civilize 
the  mass  of  the  Indians  where  they  stand,  or  to 
protect  them  from  the  greed  of  the  frontiers- 
man, is  one  of  the  things  which  must  give  great- 
est anxiety  as  we  look  into  the  future  of  external 
colonies  with  large  negro,  Hawaiian,  or  Malay 
population. 

From  most  of  the  dangers  of  a  colonial  sys- 
tem the  United  States  has  been  happily  free ; 


Slavery  157 

we  have  never  lost  a  colony  in  war,  or  suffered  5»-  Terriu- 
from  a  colonial  insurrection  other  than  Utah  "aaCoiIn^ 
outbreaks.  The  ticklish  question  of  "taxation  Question, 
without  representation  "  is  settled  by  giving  the 
territories  a  representation,  and  then  paying 
their  governmental  expenses  out  of  the  national 
treasury.  The  only  terrible,  persistent,  and 
agonizing  colonial  question  we  have  had  is  the 
question  of  slavery ;  and  it  was  the  direct  occa- 
sion of  the  Civil  War.  The  difficulty,  simply 
stated,  was  that  half  the  Union  had  slavery  and 
wanted  more  of  it ;  and  half  the  Union  had  pro- 
hibited slavery  and  wanted  to  see  it  diminish  The  issue, 
everywhere.  Had  there  been  no  colonies  the 
question  might  have  worked  itself  out ;  but  the 
time  came  —  as  it  may  come  again  on  other 
questions  —  when  each  of  the  two  sections 
insisted  that  its  system  should  be  applied  to  the 
colonies.  Down  to  the  Mexican  War,  the  ques- 
tion was  settled  by  giving  part  of  the  terri- 
tories to  the  South  and  part  to  the  North  — 
which  is  as  though  the  protectionists  were  to 
control  Hawaii,  and  the  free  traders  Porto  Rico. 

The  Compromise  of  1850  practically  extended  Settlement 
the  geographical  dividing  line  to  the  California  °^  ^®5°* 
boundary  by  creating  a  Territory  of  Utah  which 
it  was  expected  would  be  free,  and  a  Territory 
of  New  Mexico  which  was  to  be  slaveholding. 
Unfortunately,  the  compromise  dodged  the  real 
issue  by  using  obscure  phraseology,  and  in  1854 


158 


National  Colonies 


Disturbance 
of  1854. 


Lincoln's 
Doctrine, 
1858-1862. 


Power  of 
Congress. 


the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act  introduced  the  new 
and  baneful  principle  of  "  squatter  sovereignty," 
by  which  the  colonies  were  left  to  decide  for 
themselves  the  momentous  question  of  slavery — 
as  though  the  people  of  Luzon  might  establish 
a  gold  standard  and  those  of  the  Sulu  Archi- 
pelago stick  to  silver.  The  next  step  was  an 
attempt  by  the  two  sections  to  control  the  new 
colony  of  Kansas  by  sending  emigrants  into  it ; 
the  result  was  anger,  mutual  denunciation,  rival 
colonial  governments,  and  a  local  civil  war; 
an  effort  was  made  to  force  Kansas  into  the 
Union  with  the  "  Lecompton  "  slavery  constitu- 
tion, against  the  known  and  expressed  will  of 
the  people.  This  curious  outcome  of  "  popular 
sovereignty"  shocked  the  moral  sense  of  the 
nation ;  and  Abraham  Lincoln  summed  up  the 
crisis  in  his  admirable  declaration  that  "  A  house 
divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.  I  believe 
this  government  cannot  continue  permanently 
half  slave  and  half  free  ...  it  will  become  all 
one  thing  or  all  another."  Three  years  later  he 
was  the  agent  of  the  nation  in  putting  an  end 
to  this  great  colonial  question  ;  and  in  1862  he 
signed  an  act  of  Congress  destroying  slavery  in 
all  the  territories. 

In  thus  declaring  all  the  colonies  free.  Con- 
gress did  more  than  to  assert  a  splendid  prin- 
ciple of  human  rights :  it  settled  once  for  all 
the  question  of  national  supremacy ;  it  asserted 


Utah  159 

the  right  of  Congress  to  legislate  for  the 
American  colonies,  both  those  then  existing 
and  such  as  might  later  be  annexed ;  it  made  it 
certain  that  henceforth  there  would  be  a  toler- 
ably uniform  system  of  colonial  administration. 
Of  course  this  gives  to  Congress  precisely  those 
despotic  powers  the  application  of  which  at  the 
hands  of  Parliament  caused  our  American  Revo- 
lution. In  striking  down  forever  the  doctrine 
of  "popular  sovereignty,"  Congress  has  also 
precluded  any  such  elastic  system  as  that  which 
binds  the  Canadian  and  Australian  and  South 
African  communities  to  Great  Britain.  Con- 
gress may  permit  colonies  to  govern  themselves 
in  minor  matters,  but  it  has  complete  power  to 
legislate  for  every  colony,  and  no  act  of  a  Con- 
gress can  bind  its  successors  to  refrain  from 
exercising  its  powers. 

The  relations  of   Congress  to  Utah   include  52.  The  Re- 
the  only  colonial  insurrection  in  our  history,  and  '^^y^ 
mark  the  highest  point  which  has  ever  been  Utah, 
reached  in  the  direction  of   annulling  colonial  ^^7-1890. 
statutes  and   controlling   colonial    government. 
The  Mormons  went  out  to  Utah  in  1847,  while 
it  was  still  Mexican,  and  were  much  chagrined 
to  find  themselves  transferred  by  the  Peace  of 
1848  to  the  very  nation  which  they  had  been 
seeking  to  escape.      In   1850,  when  the  territo- 
rial government  was  organized,  Brigham  Young 
was  made  governor;   but  in  1857  a  new  terri- 


i6o  National  Colonies 

torial  governor  was  sent  out,  with  troops  to 
back  him,  and  Young  called  on  his  people  to 
resist  the  federal  government.  In  April,  1858, 
President  Buchanan  proclaimed  the  Mormons  to 
be  guilty  of  treason,  and  they  at  last  yielded. 
During  the  Civil  War  Utah  was  out  of  the  cur- 
rents of  national  life,  but  in  1862,  1874,  1882, 
and  1886  Congress  passed  sweeping  acts  abol- 
ishing the  whole  Mormon  regime.  The  first, 
or  "  Poland  Bill,"  reorganized  the  courts  and 
checked  the  corruptions  of  local  judges.  The 
Edmunds  Bill  of  1882  laid  very  severe  penalties 
on  polygamists,  including  ineligibility  to  any 
office.  As  this  act  did  not  break  up  the  hie- 
rarchy of  polygamist  leaders,  a  more  stringent 
statute,  the  "Edmunds-Tucker  Act"  of  1886, 
dissolved  the  corporation  known  as  "  The  Church 
of  Jesus  Christ  of  Latter-Day  Saints,"  and  con- 
fiscated its  property  for  the  support  of  schools. 
After  thirty-seven  years  of  resistance  to  the  laws 
of  Congress,  the  Mormons  at  last  yielded;  a 
convenient  "revelation"  took  away  the  religious 
sanction  of  polygamy ;  the  Church  managed  to 
hide  most  of  its  property;  but  the  resistance 
was  broken,  and  in  1896  the  long-delayed  state- 
hood was  conferred. 

Though  the  United  States  was  victorious  in 
the  end,  the  whole  affair  shows  that  even  a 
feeble  colony  may  for  years  defy  the  public 
sentiment  of  the  land,  and  disobey  acts  of  Con- 


Reconstruction  i6i 

gress ;  and  the  episode  shows  also  how  hard  it 
is  effectively  to  deal  with  questions  in  which  — 
however  wrongfully  —  appeal  is  made  to  the 
principle  of  freedom  of  conscience. 

The  broad   principle   of   colonial   regulation  53-  Colonial 
seemed  very  simple  in  1862,  when  there  was  no  during  r^ 
expectation  of  keeping  up  permanent  colonies ;  construc- 
for  as  soon  as  the  seven  then  existing  Territories  1865-1873. 
of  Nebraska,  Colorado,  Nevada,  Dakota,  Wash- 
ington, Utah,  New  Mexico,  and  Indian  Territory 
should  be  admitted  as  states,  the  question  of 
national  dominion  over  dependencies  must  dis- 
appear.    At  the  end  of  the  Civil  War,  however, 
the  power  of  Congress  over  colonies  was  invoked 
in  three  unexpected  directions  — in  reorganizing 
the  Southern  states,  in  breaking  up  polygamy 
in  Utah,  and  in  providing  for  the  new  colony  of 
Alaska. 

At  that  time  and  since,  the  best  constitutional 
lawyers  have  been  unable  to  frame  any  theory 
vhich  fits  the  case  of  the  seceded  and  beaten 
Jtates.  Charles  Sumner  set  up  the  ingenious 
theory  that  secession  was  state  suicide,  and  that 
the  Southern  communities  had  reverted  to  ter- 
ritories ;  hence  their  boundaries  might  be  al- 
tered, and  it  was  serenely  suggested  to  obliterate 
South  Carolina  from  the  map.  Thaddeus  Ste- 
vens denied  the  seceded  states  even  a  status  as 
territories,  and  looked  upon  them  as  conquered 
provinces,  to  be  organized  at  the   pleasure  of 


1 62  National  Colonies 

Congress.  As  a  fact,  the  South  was  for  sev- 
eral years  kept  virtually  in  a  colonial  status, 
subject  to  a  degree  and  pertinacity  of  national 
interference  never  known  by  any  organized  "  ter- 
ritory." Military  governors  were  appointed,  and 
these  governors  removed  state  officials,  made 
civil  appointments,  reorganized  city  govern- 
ments, ignored  state  laws,  retried  persons  ac- 
quitted by  the  state  courts  and  pardoned  con- 
victed criminals,  compelled  the  judges  to  call 
negro  jurors,  and  even  presumed  to  regulate 
the  sale  of  whiskey.  Gradually  the  Southern 
states  were  readmitted  to  the  privileges  of  the 
Union,  under  onerous  conditions  not  required 
of  other  states ;  and  in  1 87 1 ,  Georgia,  the  last 
reconstructed  colony,  was  readmitted  to  the 
Union. 
54.  Oati3ring       The  experience  of  successfully  carrying  on 

Colonies,        colonies  within  our  continental  borders,  reached 
1854-1900. 

by  lines  of  land  transport,  and  hemmed  in  by 
organized  states,  may  not  apply  to  distant  colo- 
nies reached  and  defended  only  by  sea.  Such 
dependencies,  however,  the  United  States  has 
possessed  for  more  than  half  a  century ;  and 
several  forms  of  colonial  policy  have  been 
marked  out  for  them. 
Aves  In  1854  certain  American  citizens  found  guano 

Islands,  dcposits   ou  the   Aves    Islands,   a   group   long 

known,  but  then  occupied  by  no  power.     When 
Venezuela  drove  off  the  guano-seekers,  our  gov- 


Islands  1 63 

emment  exacted  an  indemnity,  on  the  ground 
that  the  lands  were,  at  least  for  the  time  being, 
American  soil.  A  result  of  the  controversy  was 
an  act  of  Congress  in  1856,  authorizing  the 
President  to  protect  Americans  in  their  occupa- 
tion of  such  islands,  if  not  already  occupied  by 
some  other  country.  Accordingly,  claims  have 
been  laid  at  various  times  to  Cayo  Verde,  near 
Cuba,  and  Alta  Vela,  off  San  Domingo,  and 
other  small  islands,  and  especially  to  Navassa  Navassa. 
Island,  just  off  the  coast  of  Haiti.  Here  in 
1889  and  1890  it  was  found  that  contractors 
were  virtually  holding  their  laborers  to  slavery, 
and  the  long  arm  of  Brother  Jonathan  was 
stretched  out  to  release  them.  Between  1841 
and  1867  the  United  States  claimed  Wake  Island, 
Christmas,  and  Midway  Islands  in  the  Pacific. 
None  of  these  distant  islands  is  of  much  con- 
sequence; but  the  principle  that  the  flag  will 
follow  the  discoverer  is  a  colonial  principle. 

Coaling  harbors  have  often  been  discussed  Coaling 
as  though  they  had  a  colonial  status;  the  only  "*''^"- 
ports  actually  taken  over  by  the  government  are 
Pearl  Harbor  in  Hawaii,  Samana  Bay  in  Haiti, 
Pango-Pango  Bay  in  Samoa,  Nagasaki  in  Japan, 
and  Chiriqui  Bay  in  Lower  California.  Of 
these  five,  two  are  now  indubitable  parts  of  the 
territory  of  the  United  States,  and  none  of 
them  has  ever  received  a  special  government. 
To  be  sure,  an  act  of  1842  authorized  the  Secre- 


164  National  Colonies 

tary  of  the  Navy  to  establish  such  harbors  wher- 
ever he  thought  necessary;  but  they  are  held  by 
consent  of  the  power  in  whose  territory  they 
lie,  though  they  undoubtedly  incite  to  annexa- 
tion and  consequent  colonization. 

The  really  serious  instances  of  outlying  colo- 
nies previous  to  the  cessions  of  Hawaii  and 
Porto  Rico  are  Alaska  and  Samoa.  Alaska  had 
been  Russian  from  the  time  of  discovery,  about 
1 74 1,  till  in  1867  it  was  taken  over  by  the  United 

Alaska,  1867.  States,  as  a  favor  to  Russia,  who  preferred  seven 
million  dollars  to  a  sub-arctic  province.  No 
popular  sentiment  demanded  the  annexation, 
and  until  the  sealing  troubles  of  1884  there  was 
no  interest  in  Alaska,  and  no  definite  colonial 
government.  Secretary  Seward  cast  about  him 
for  some  legal  basis  for  his  colony,  and  found  it 
in  an  act  of  1834  passed  for  quite  a  different 
purpose,  and  long  obsolete,  which  defined  the 
"  Indian  country "  as  a  "  part  of  the  United 
States  west  of  the  Mississippi."  This,  said 
Seward,  "by  a  happy  elasticity  of  experience, 
widening  as  our  dominions  widen,  includes  the 
territory  ceded  by  Russia." 

Government        In  1 868  Alaska  was  made  a  collection  dis- 

of  Alaska,       ^^ict ;  and  in  1888  "  a  civil  and  judicial  district," 
1867-1900.  ' 

and  also  "  a  land  district."     It  was  enacted  that 

the  laws  of  the  state  of  Oregon  then  in  force 
should  be  the  laws  of  Alaska  so  far  as  applica- 
ble, and  provision  was  made  for  a  governor  and 


Alaska  165 

a  court,  but  no  legislature.  The  principal  sub- 
ject of  national  regulation  has  been  the  seal 
fishing,  for  which  there  has  been  a  series  of 
statutes,  contracts  with  private  corporations, 
executive  orders,  decisions  of  courts,  and  inter- 
national arbitrations.  The  Alaska  Fur  Company 
has  had  some  rights  over  the  Indians,  and  some- 
what resembles  the  South-African  Company. 
But  for  that  controversy,  and  for  the  recent  gold 
discoveries,  the  country  would  be  content  to 
leave  Alaska  in  the  condition  of  a  formless, 
unorganized  colony,  without  a  governor,  a  legis- 
lature, or  a  court  of  its  own. 

The  colonial  status  of  Samoa  was  defined  by  55.  Samoa, 
the   general   act  of   the  conference  at  Berlin,  '^S-^poo- 
signed  June  14,  1889,  and  intended  to  be  a  per-  Tripartite 
manent  adjustment  of  the  rival  claims  of  Eng-  ^^''^^^^' 
land,  Germany,  and  the  United  States  to  rights 
in  the  islands.     The  official  reports  of  the  work- 
ings  of    that    conjoint    government    are    droll 
reading,  and  furnish  a  sufficient  comment  on 
cooperative  colonization.     When  the  council  of 
Apia  voted   that   English  silver,  but  not  Ger- 
man marks,  should  be  legal  tender,  "  Freiherr 
Senfft  von  Pilsach,  Chairman  of  the  Municipal 
Council,'*  resigned  and  appealed  to  Germany ; 
but  when  four  other  members   of  the  Munici- 
pal Council   resigned,  the   German  vice-consul 
thought  that  they  ought  to  be  punished.     The 
municipality  of   Apia   took   the   import   duties 


1 66  National  Colonies 

allowed  by  the  treaty,  so  that  the  rest  of  the 
kingdom  of  Samoa  was  in  the  condition  of 
Mother  Hubbard's  dog.  It  cost  $1,246  to  col- 
lect $4,789  of  duties ;  and  the  titular  king,  by 
aid  of  the  protection  of  three  mighty  world 
powers,  was  paid  a  quarterly  salary,  "  in  instal- 
ments," at  the  rate  of  $47.70  per  month,  till  the 
instalments  gave  out.  The  royal  government 
had  a  right  to  $20,000  of  poll  tax  on  the  natives ; 
but  the  government  was  able  out  of  this  sum  to 
collect  only  $10.  The  antics  of  two  drunken 
sailors  ashore  have  caused  the  exchange  of 
grave  despatches  between  the  ambassadors  of 
the  Court  of  St.  James,  the  Court  of  Berlin, 
and  the  administration  at  Washington.  It  is 
the  three  kings  of  Chickeraboo  over  again  — 
only  there  was  but  one  king  against  three  dis- 
coverers. 

Surely  Brother  Jonathan  had  more  serious 
business  than  the  adjustment  of  the  affairs  of  a 
play  kingdom.  Whatever  the  interests  of  the 
nation  in  their  fifty  thousand  dollars  a  year  of 
Samoan  trade,  whatever  the  necessity  of  pro- 
tecting American  residents  in  Samoa,  what- 
ever the  importance  of  keeping  the  right  to  a 
naval  station  there,  —  the  colonial  system  as 
Settlement  of  applied  in  Samoa  was  farcical.  In  1899  it 
1899.  ^as  replaced  by  a  cession  from  England  and 

Germany  of  all  claims  to  the  island  of  Tutvrila, 
containing  the  harbor  of  Pango-Pango. 


Samoa  167 

Our  colonization  in  the  Pacific  up  to  the  Span- 
ish War  of  1898  has  not  been  such  as  to  prepare 
Brother  Jonathan  for  deaUng  with  rich,  prosper- 
ous islands,  necessary  for  naval  defence.  By 
the  treaty  ending  the  War  of  1898,  and  two  Acquisitions 
other  treaties  made  during  the  war,  the  United  °^  ^898-i9oa 
States  has  acquired  undisputed  possession  of 
Porto  Rico,  Hawaii,  Tutuila,  Midway  and  Wake 
Islands,  Guam,  and  the  Phihppines,  besides  a 
lively  influence  in  Cuba. 

What  light  does  this  experience  of  the  last  56.  Discom- 
century  and  a  quarter  throw  upon  the  future  of  c°doniai* 
American  colonization  ?     It  shows,  in  the  first  PoUcy. 
place,  that  the  idea  of  national  colonies  is  as 
old  as  the  republic,  and  that  during  the  last 
fifty  years  the  nation  has  grown  accustomed  to  Traditions, 
outlying  dependencies.     The  annexation  of  ter- 
ritory  and   acceptance  of   protectorates  which 
result  from  the  Spanish  War  are  therefore  not 
signs  of  a  new  policy,  but  the  enlargement  of  a 
policy  long  pursued. 

In  the  second  place,  Brother  Jonathan  has  immigration, 
been  very  successful  in  at  least  one  kind  of 
colonization  —  he  has  received  emigrants  from 
all  Western  nations,  has  put  them  on  wild  land, 
together  with  his  own  children,  and  has  seen 
them  grow  up  together  into  vigorous  self-govern- 
ing colonies.  If  our  future  colonies  can  repeat 
the  conditions  of  our  territories,  they  must  also 
be  successful.     Louisiana,  Florida,  Texas,  New 


1 68 


National  Colonies 


No  tropical 
Settlements. 


Colonial  Self- 
government. 


Mexico,  Arizona,  California,  have  all  become 
Anglo-Saxon  communities ;  why  not  also  Porto 
Rico,  Cuba,  Hawaii,  Guam,  and  Luzon.? 

If  a  strong  current  of  American  or  foreign 
immigration  flows  into  those  regions,  it  will  be 
contrary  to  the  experience  of  all  other  coloniz- 
ing powers,  except  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico.  There 
is  not  a  tropical  colony  on  the  globe  with  a  con- 
siderable European  population.  Madagascar, 
Ceylon,  Java,  Borneo,  Sumatra,  Jamaica,  St. 
Thomas,  —  they  all  have  a  thin  stratum  of  domi- 
nant Europeans,  there  to  make  money  or  to 
rule,  but  not  to  make  a  new  home  for  their  chil- 
dren ;  for  the  hewing  of  wood  and  the  drawing 
of  water  they  all  depend  on  natives,  on  imported 
coolies,  or  on  the  descendants  of  negro  slaves. 
Of  our  new  dependencies,  Hawaii  alone  is  Ukely 
to  become  an  American  community. 

Can  the  native  population  be  educated  up 
to  self-government  "i  We  have  a  national  the- 
ory, much  shattered  by  the  Cubans,  that  Span- 
ish-Americani  love  republican  self-government. 
We  may  trust  Porto  Ricans  as  far  as  we  trust 
Peruvians  and  Guatemalans,  but  no  farther. 
Judging  from  the  experience  of  other  nations 
and  of  ourselves,  the  Pacific  islands  will  not  be 
allowed  anything  like  our  territorial  govern- 
ments till  the  French  let  the  Anamites  govern 
themselves,  and  the  English  turn  Bengal  over 
to  the  natives ;  or  the  Sioux  send  a  delegate  to 


Control  169 

Congress,  and  the  negroes  are  allowed  to  vote 
in  the  Southern  states. 

The  only  alternative  is  the  rule  of  the  few —  Rule  of  the 
and  those  few  exercising  power  conferred  by  a  ^^*' 
distant  administration ;  but  that  system  means 
a  change  in  American  standards  of  government 
and  human  rights.  We  must  give  up  our  fine 
contempt  for  other  nations  which  rule  with  an 
iron  hand  ;  we  must  abandon  the  principle  that 
"  all  just  government  depends  on  the  consent  of 
the  governed  " ;  we  must  look  on  the  colonial 
status  as  permanent,  and  not  a  stage  on  the  way 
to  statehood;  we  must  begin  to  settle  difficult 
questions  of  religion  and  worship  by  orders  from 
Washington ;  we  must  surround  our  colonial 
governors  with  body-guards,  and  arrest  insur- 
gent leaders ;  we  must  either  yield  part  of  our 
protective  policy,  or  give  up  the  principle  for 
which  our  forefathers  fought  in  the  Revolu- 
tion—  that  colonies  exist  for  their  own  benefit, 
and  not  for  the  advantage  of  the  mother  coun- 
try ;  we  must  yield  our  practice  of  free  inter- 
course between  the  parts  of  our  empire,  or  else 
we  must  admit  Chinese  to  the  continent. 

To  avoid  these  perplexing  questions  would  be  Need  of  Or- 
very  comfortable,  but  the  die  is  now  cast ;    we  8^"'"^'°"- 
take  the  problems  when  we  accept  the  responsi- 
bilities.    The  question  is  no  longer,  "  Shall  we 
face  the  difficulties  of  colonization  ? "  but,  "  How 
shall  we  face  them  ? "     One  way  is  by  adding 


lyo  National  Colonies 

no  more  colonies ;  another  is  to  try  to  adapt 
our  government  to  new  strains.  For  efficient 
colonial  administration  we  need  a  Colonial  De- 
partment, to  which  shall  be  committed  the  ques- 
tions of  lands,  natives,  appointment  of  officials, 
and  colonial  finance ;  and  we  need  a  sense  of 
colonial  responsibility  in  Congress.  That  body 
finally  settled  the  slavery  contest  and  the  Utah 
trouble ;  but  it  acts  too  slowly  for  efficiency  in 
a  colonial  policy.  We  need  a  public  sentiment 
which  will  recognize  the  necessity  of  trained 
colonial  administrators,  who  learn  to  know  their 
people  by  a  lifetime  of  service.  The  spirit 
which  has  reformed  the  Treasury  and  the  Ind- 
ian Bureau  must  be  invoked  to  create  a  pro- 
fessional colonial  service. 
Discontent  of  The  most  serious  difficulty  of  all  is  that  we 
theWeii-oflf.  ^XQ.  trying  to  apply  a  good  system  of  Anglo- 
Saxon  government  to  those  who  prefer  a  poor 
system  — to  give  jury  trials  to  people  who  think 
it  a  shorter  cut  to  bribe  the  judge.  We  must 
learn  to  show  patience  to  pagans,  and  toleration 
for  imperfect  Christians.  In  questions  of  human 
rights,  the  limited  privileges  which  we  can  allow 
with  safety  will  be  freedom  in  comparison  with 
the  previous  experience  of  our  new  colonists ; 
and  in  the  long  run  we  must  trust  the  Ameri- 
can people  who  freed  the  negro  slaves  to  deal 
justly  with  half-breeds,  —  Kanakas  and  Malays, 
—  though    justice    no    longer    means    political 


Difficulties  1 7 1 

equality  even  at  home.  Whether  we  like  it  or 
not,  we  have  no  longer  the  right  to  sit  quietly 
under  our  own  vine  and  fig  tree.  May  it  be 
said  of  the  United  States  as  Bacon  said  of 
Rome,  "  It  was  not  the  Romans  that  spread 
upon  the  world,  it  was  the  world  that  spread 
upon  the  Romans;  and  that  was  the  sure  way 
of  greatness." 


VI 


Expan 
sion, 
1775-1900. 


WHAT     THE     FOUNDERS     OF     THE 

UNION    THOUGHT    CONCERNING 

TERRITORIAL    PROBLEMS 

57.  Histori-  "  Is  there  anything  whereof  it  may  be  said, 
ofEtjS^'*'  See,  this  is  new?  It  hath  been  already  of 
old  time,  which  was  before  us."  So  said  the 
Preacher;  and  his  generalization  is  nowhere 
more  distinctly  exemplified  than  in  the  dis- 
cussions of  the  last  few  years  over  the  colonial 
policy  of  the  United  States ;  for  both  expansion- 
ists and  anti-expansionists  seem  to  look  upon 
our  present  territorial  problems  as  unexampled. 
In  previous  chapters  an  attempt  has  been  made 
to  show  how  numerous  have  been  the  historical 
precedents  for  things  that  seem  new  in  our 
present  foreign  policy ;  and  in  the  question  of 
expansion  it  is  possible  to  draw  a  close  parallel 
from  the  earhest  experience  of  the  American 
republic. 
Experience.  Whatever  the  merits  of  the  present  contro- 
versy, the  question  whether  it  was  the  inten- 
tion of  the  framers  of  our  national  government 
to  increase  the  territory  of  the  Union  is  one 
of  fact ;  and  the  records  of  that  time  seem 
173 


Experience  1 73 

clearly  to  show  that  in  the  first  thirty  years  of 
the  United  States  of  America  —  from  1775  to 
1805 — the  question  of  territorial  expansion 
was  repeatedly  presented  to  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  and  three  times  led  to  annexa- 
tions; that  we  had  territorial  disputes  with  all 
our  next-door  neighbors,  and  made  advances  into 
unexplored  and  hitherto  unoccupied  country. 
Furthermore,  within  those  thirty  years  the 
founders  of  the  republic  thought  they  had 
settled  nearly  all  our  present  territorial  prob- 
lems :  they  decided  upon  the  status  of  con- 
quered territory,  the  status  of  ceded  territory, 
the  relations  of  the  government  to  the  abo- 
rigines, the  suppression  of  disorders  in  newly- 
occupied  territory,  the  administration  of  distant 
colonies,  and  the  constitutional  authority  upon 
which  the  process  of  colonization  and  of  colonial 
government  was  based. 

In  this  period  of  three  decades  it  is  easy  to  Episodes, 
distinguish  four  successive  territorial  episodes. 
The  first  was  the  conquest  of  the  Northwest 
Territory  in  1778,  and  the  consequent  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  Mississippi  as  the  western 
boundary  by  the  treaties  of  1782  and  1783; 
the  second  was  the  discussion  over  territorial 
powers  during  the  Confederation,  and  in  the 
federal  and  state  conventions  of  1787  and  1788  ; 
the  third  was  the  question  of  the  navigation 
of  the  Mississippi,  from  1783  to  1785  ;  the  fourth 


174 


Territorial  Problems 


58.  Con- 
quest of  the 
Northwest, 
1778-1779. 


La  Salle, 
1681. 


George 
Rogers 
Clark.  1778. 


Rivalry  with 

France, 

1613-1763. 


was  the  annexation  of  Louisiana  —  a  great 
drama  played  in  the  three  years  from  1800 
to  1803. 

That  our  forefathers  had  some  notions  of 
territorial  conquest  may  be  seen  in  the  impor- 
tant conquests  made  during  the  Revolutionary 
War  in  the  region  between  the  Ohio  River,  the 
Great  Lakes,  and  the  Mississippi.  Thither  La 
Salle's  men  started,  in  December,  1681,  "to  go 
towards  the  Divine  River,  called  by  the  Indians 
Checagou."  Here  in  1778  George  Rogers  Clark 
entered  upon  what  was  far  the  most  adventurous 
and  daring  campaign  in  the  Revolution.  Clark's 
expedition  was  commissioned  and  sent  out  by 
Virginia,  and  not  by  the  federal  government ; 
hence  the  Virginians  claimed  exclusive  title  to 
the  vast  regions  which  were  thus  annexed.  But 
in  the  minds  of  the  people  of  other  states  the 
capture  was  simply  a  part  of  the  general  military 
operations  of  the  Revolution,  and  they  claimed, 
with  justice,  and  finally  with  success,  that  Vir- 
ginia must  yield  the  territory  to  the  general 
government,  to  be  administered  for  the  general 
good.^ 

The  hot  discussions  on  this  subject  in  and 
out  of  Congress,  and  the  pamphlet  literature 
of  the  time,  all  show  a  conception  of  the 
ability  of  the  Americans,  not  only  to  take  ter- 
ritory by  the  sword,  but  to  hold  and  govern  it 
1  See  %  14. 


Northwest  1 75 

under  a  colonial  status.  The  easy  capture  of 
the  Northwest  simply  shows  the  fluidity  of  the 
territorial  conditions  of  that  time.  Ever  since 
the  first  brush  between  England  and  France, 
at  Mount  Desert,  in  161 3,  there  had  been  a 
succession  of  American  wars  of  conquest.  In 
the  successive  treaties  during  the  eighteenth 
century  England  gained  from  France  one 
piece  of  territory  after  another,  till,  in  1763, 
France  was  totally  excluded  from  the  con- 
tinent. It  is  not  strange  that  to  the  Ameri- 
cans of  that  time  transfer  of  territory  seemed  a 
natural  incident  of  warfare,  and  colonization 
seemed  a  part  of  the  advance  of  civilization; 
though  in  1778  it  was  as  clear  as  it  is  now  that 
annexation  meant  a  great  change  in  the  balance 
of  national  forces  and  in  the  future  growth  of 
the  country.  The  West  was  already  looming  up 
as  a  political  power,  and  there  were  not  wanting 
sages  who  shook  their  heads  at  the  new  and 
terrible  problems  which  that  vigorous  region 
must  bring  upon  the  country. 

At  the  end   of   the   Revolution   the  United  59;  Annex- 
States    had   a  most    excellent    opportunity   to  southwest 
remain  within  the  former  limits  of  the  thirteen  1781-1783- 
colonies;  for  in  the  peace  negotiations  of  1782 
and  1783  it  was  the  distinct  purpose  of  France 
and  Spain,  and  at  times  of  England,  to  make 
the  watershed  of  the  Appalachian  chain  prac- 
tically  the   western    boundary.       When    John 


176        Territorial  Problems 

French  Pur-  Adams  joined  the  other  negotiators  in  Paris  he 
poses,  1782.  quickly  discerned  the  intention  to  limit  the  terri- 
tories of  the  United  States,  and  he  wrote :  "Mr. 
Jay  likes  Frenchmen  as  little  as  Mr.  Lee  and 
Mr.  Izard  did.  He  says  they  are  not  a  moral 
people;  they  know  not  what  it  is.  He  don't 
like  any  Frenchmen.  The  Marquis  de  Lafay- 
ette is  clever,  but  he  is  a  Frenchman.  Our  allies 
don't  play  fair,  he  told  me.  They  were  en- 
deavoring to  deprive  us  of  the  fishery,  the  West- 
em  lands,  and  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi. 
They  would  even  bargain  with  the  English  to 
deprive  us  of  them.  They  want  to  play  the 
Western  lands,  the  Mississippi,  and  the  whole 
Gulf  of  Mexico,  into  the  hands  of  Spain."  The 
British  ambassadors  at  first  also  informed  the 
Americans  that  they  did  not  approve  giving 
the  Mississippi  as  a  western  boundary,  for  it 
was  too  extended,  too  vast  a  country. 
Three  Areas,  Three  different  areas,  adjacent  to  the  original 
^'^^^'  English  colonies,  were  to  be  disposed  of  in  the 

negotiations.  First,  some  of  the  Americans 
doubted  whether  "we  could  ever  have  a  real 
peace,  with  Canada  or  Nova  Scotia  in  the  hands 
of  the  English."  The  second  region  was  the 
Northwest  Territory,  in  which  the  Americans 
had  the  right  of  possession  by  conquest  and 
occupation  of  a  considerable  part  of  the  posts. 
The  third  area  was  the  territory  south  of  the 
Ohio  River,  most  of  which  had  not  been  under 


Peace  of  1J82  177 

the  jurisdiction  of  any  English  colony  prior  to 
the  Revolution. 

The  three  arch  expansionists  of  that  period, 
Franklin,  Jay,  and  Adams,  without  much  diffi- 
culty secured   English   consent  to  making   the 
Mississippi  the  western  boundary,  as   required 
by  the  instruction   of    Congress  of   1779;  but  instructions, 
Vergennes,  the  French  prime  minister,  insisted  ^^^' 
that  "  the  boundaries  of  the  United  States  south 
of  the  Ohio  were  confined   to   the   mountains 
following  the  watershed."     Although,  in  1781,   instructions. 
Congress  had  so  far  retracted  as  to  instruct  the  ^^  ^' 
envoys  "  ultimately  to  govern   themselves  "  by 
the  advice  of  the  minister  of  France  on  that 
subject,  the  three  men  in  1782   fearlessly  and  Treaty.  1783. 
successfully  broke   their   instructions,  accepted 
the  amity  of  England,  and  secured  a  clause  in 
the  treaty  by  which  the  coveted  boundary  was 
obtained  for  the  American  people  of  that  time 
and  their  posterity.     By  this  magnificent  piece  Western 
of    diplomacy   the   United    States    secured   an      "°  ^^' 
unquestioned  seat  upon  the    Mississippi  River, 
and   thus   prepared   the   way   for   an   ultimate 
extension  across  the  continent. 

There  were  several  tender  spots  in  the  bound- 
ary line,  but  the  only  one  of  immediate  impor- 
tance came  from  the  close  neighborhood  of  the 
Spanish  in  the  narrow  strip  along  the  Gulf 
known  as  West  Florida,  and  in  the  inability  of 
the  Americans  to  secure  from  the  Spanish  the 


lyS        Territorial  Problems 


60.    Govern- 
ment of  An- 
nexations, 
1780-1790. 


State  Ces- 
sions, 
1781-1802. 


right  to  navigate  the  Mississippi  to  its  mouth. 
But  under  the  terms  of  the  treaty,  along  the 
whole  boundary  line  from  Lake  Itasca  south- 
ward, and  eastward  to  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  our 
only  neighbor  was  weak  and  failing  Spain,  and 
the  only  obstacle  to  the  occupation  of  the  new 
empire  was  the  objection  of  powerful  savage 
tribes. 

Having  thus  inaugurated  the  policy  of  terri- 
torial expansion,  our  forefathers  next  set  them- 
selves to  the  great  task  of  furnishing  a  colonial 
government  for  their  new  possessions  ;  and  dur- 
ing the  ten  years  from  1780  to  1790  this  was 
one  of  the  chief  concerns  of  Congress.  For  a 
time  the  little  federal  government  found  itself 
in  a  contest  with  several  of  the  larger  and  more 
powerful  states  in  the  Union;  but  by  a  diplo- 
macy scarcely  inferior  to  that  of  our  envoys  in 
Paris,  and  through  a  general  spirit  of  patriotism, 
the  claims  of  all  these  states  were  gradually 
ceded  between  1781  and  1802.  And  thus  the 
United  States  came  into  undisputed  government 
over  the  whole  region  between  the  Appalachians 
and  the  Mississippi  River ;  the  District  of  Ken- 
tucky alone  remained  a  part  of  the  Common- 
wealth of  Virginia  till  its  admission  as  a  separate 
state  of  the  Union  in  1792.  It  is  one  of  the 
platitudes  of  American  history  that,  after  Con- 
gress had  completed  the  primal  national  task 
of  securing  independence  by  arms  and  regis- 


Government  1 79 

tering  it  in  treaties,  the  possession  of  this  great 
territorial  domain  was  the  chief  steadying  and 
unifying  influence  in  the  later  years  of  the 
weak  Confederation. 

The  first  evidence  that  Congress  had  risen  to 
its  task  was  the  vote  of  October  10,  1780,  passed  Vote  of  1780. 
before  the  nation  had  acquired  claim  to  a  single 
rood  of  ground,  which  provided  distinctly  for  the 
three  elementary  principles  of  early  American 
colonialism:  (i)  That  the  lands  "shall  be  dis- 
posed of  for  the  common  benefit  of  the  United 
States,"  whereby  the  nation  was  pledged  against 
a  system  of  permanent  national  ownership  or 
leaseholds,  (2)  That  the  said  lands  "  shall  be 
granted  or  settled  at  such  times  and  under  such 
regulations  as  shall  hereafter  be  agreed  on 
by  the  United  States  in  Congress  assembled," 
thus  asserting  the  right  to  govern  territory. 
(3)  That  this  territory  "shall  be  settled  and 
formed  into  distinct  republican  states,  which 
shall  become  members  of  the  Federal  Union." 

Swift  upon  the  assurance  of  Congress  that  it 
would  administer  the  territory,  came  a  detailed 
scheme  of  colonial  government.  In  1784  Ordinance 
Thomas  Jefferson  reported  an  ordinance  which,  °'  ^^84- 
with  some  alterations,  was  adopted  by  Congress : 
it  set  forth  the  future  boundaries  of  new  states, 
permitted  the  settlers  to  establish  their  own  local 
governments,  and  authorized  them  to  establish 
temporary  legislatures,  with  eventually  a  dele- 


i8o        Territorial  Problems 

gate  in  Congress ;  and  distinctly  promised  that 
they  should  be  admitted  to  full  statehood.     For- 
tunately for  the  school  children  of  a  later  genera- 
tion, Congress  did  not  adopt  the  polysyllabic  state 
names  which  Jefferson  suggested,  Metropotamia, 
Michigania,  Pelisipia,  Polypotamia,  and  the  rest. 
Although  there  had  for  fifteen  years  been  some 
settlements  on  the  upper  waters  of   the   Ken- 
tucky and  Tennessee,  none  of  those  communities 
took  advantage  of   the  privileges  of  the  ordi- 
Ordinanceof  nance,  and  it  was  not  until  1787  that,  by  a  sec- 
*^^'  ond  great  territorial  enactment,  the  Northwest 

Ordinance,  a  beginning  of  an  organized  colonial 
system  was  made.  By  that  ordinance  the  power 
of  Congress  to  establish  for  the  territory  such 
governments  as  seemed  to  be  suitable  was  more 
distinctly  stated.  For  it  set  up  for  the  North- 
west Territory  a  double  system  :  first  a  prelimi- 
nary territorial  government,  by  an  appointive 
governor  and  appointive  judges;  to  be  followed 
later  by  an  elective  representative  assembly. 
.  The  statutes  of  the  appointive  legislature  were 
subject  to  annulment  by  Congress ;  the  laws  of 
the  elective  legislature  were  subject  to  the  gov- 
ernor's veto  power. 

A  bill  of  rights  was  added,  securing  religious 
liberty,  the  privileges  of  just  and  speedy  legal 
proceedings,  "schools,  and  the  means  of  educa- 
tion," and  the  prohibition  of  slavery.  Besides 
the  bill  of  rights,  a  detailed  system  of  territorial 


Ordinance  of  178 j  1 8 1 

government  was  sketched ;  it  was  to  include  two 
successive  stages  of  administration,  —  a  tempo- 
rary form,  in  which  the  governor  and  judges 
appointed  by  Congress  could  make  laws  subject 
to  annulment  by  Congress,  and  later  a  territo- 
rial legislature,  with  a  veto  power  in  the  gov- 
ernor. Thus,  before  the  adoption  of  the  federal 
Constitution,  a  system  of  colonial  administration 
had  been  actually  inaugurated,  and  it  was  ex- 
pected that  the  same  general  principle  would 
be  extended  to  the  other  inchoate  states. 

So  thoroughgoing  and  complete  was  the  pro- 
cess, both  of  annexation  and  of  care  for  new  terri- 
tories, that  in  the  federal  and  state  conventions  Constitu- 
of  1787  and  1788  there  is  almost  no  refer-  Jj°n,-o^s°"" 
ence  either  to  annexation  or  to  territorial  govern-  1787-1788. 
ment.  The  clause  giving  Congress  "  Power  to 
dispose  of  and  make  all  needful  Rules  and  Reg- 
ulations respecting  the  Territory  or  other  Prop- 
erty belonging  to  the  United  States "  passed 
without  debate,  because  it  simply  registered  the 
practice  of  the  old  Confederation.  Nobody 
suggested  further  annexations,  not  because  they 
were  thought  impossible,  but  because  the  only 
danger  which  men  feared  was  loss  of  territory. 
As  Patrick  Henry  said  :  "  If  the  king  of  Eng- 
land wished  to  dismember  the  empire,  would  he 
dare  to  attempt  it  without  the  advice  of  Parlia- 
ment 1  Would  it  be  so  in  your  American 
government }    No."      What    Henry   and   what 


1 82        Territorial  Problems 

wiser  men  feared   was  that   "the   Senate,  by 

means  of  a  treaty,  might  alienate  territory,  etc., 

without  legislative  sanction."     It  is  perhaps  not 

remarkable  that  no  distinct  clause  authorizing 

treaties  of  cession  was  introduced,  for  without 

such  a  clause  in  the  articles  of   confederation, 

the  Americans  had  within  five  years  made  such 

a  treaty  and  had  thus  come  into  legal  possession 

of  a  vast  area,  of  which  a  large  part  was  not  yet 

organized. 

6i.  Insist-         The    framers   of  the   Constitution   perfectly 

ence  on  the  understood   that   the  power   which   they   gave 

Boundary,      Congress  to  make  war  included  the  power  to 

1783-1795-      conquer  territory,  and  that  the  power  to  make 

treaties  included  authority  to  annex  by  peaceful 

cession;  for  in  1788  they  were  seeking  a  new 

territorial  treaty  with  Spain,  and  some  of  them 

were  threatening  war  if  the  cession  were  refused. 

In   the  negotiations  of    1783  no  treaty  of  any 

kind   could   be   obtained  from  Spain,  a  power 

which  looked  with  justified  uneasiness  upon  the 

success   of   rebellious  American   colonies ;   but 

Spain  held  a  region  of  such  value  to  the  Western 

Danger  of       Communities  that,  in  1 784,  Washington  wrote  : 

Western  Se-  i<  yj^g  Wcstem  States  (I  speak  now  from  my  own 

cession,  1784.  ^       '^  ■' 

observation)  stand,  as  it  were,  upon  a  pivot; 
the  touch  of  a  feather  would  turn  them  any  way. 
They  have  looked  down  the  Mississippi  until 
Spain — very  impolitically,  I  think,  for  them- 
selves—  threw  difficulties  in  their  way."     The 


Mississippi  1 83 

truth  is  that  the  few  thousand  Western  people 
were  in  a  ferment,  and  openly  threatened  seces- 
sion unless  the  Union  would  secure  for  them 
the  unquestioned  right  to  send  their  goods  down 
the  Mississippi  to  the  Gulf  without  paying  duty 
to  the  Spaniards.  At  the  same  time  the  Span- 
iards, with  some  show  of  justice,  contested  the 
southern  boundary  which  had  been  granted 
without  their  consent  by  England,  and  insisted 
that  the  United  States  extended  no  farther  south 
than  the  mouth  of  the  Yazoo,  instead  of  the 
thirty-first  parallel. 

To  settle  these  difficulties  there  appeared  at 
the  seat  of  government  in  1785  Don  Diego  Spanish  Min- 
Gardoqui,  bearing  a  commission  from  "  Don  "**"'  ^^*^' 
Carlos,  by  the  grace  of  God  King  of  Castile,  of 
Leon,  of  Aragon,  of  the  two  Sicilies,  of  Jerusa- 
lem, of  Navarre,  of  Granada,  of  Toledo,  of 
Valencia,  of  Galicia,  of  Majorca,  of  Seville,  of 
Sardinia,  of  Cordova,  of  Corsica,  of  Murcia, 
of  Jaen,  of  the  Algarves,  of  Algeciras,  of 
Gibraltar,  of  the  Canary  Islands,  of  the  East 
and  West  India  Islands,  and  Terra  Firma,  of  the 
Ocean  Sea ;  Archduke  of  Austria ;  Duke  of 
Burgundy,  of  Brabant,  and  of  Milan ;  Count  of 
Apsburg,  of  Flanders,  of  Tirol,  and  of  Barce- 
lona; Lord  of  Biscay  and  of  Molina,  etc." 

Gardoqui  offered  a  commercial  treaty  exceed-  Question  of 
ingly  acceptable  to  the  merchants  of   the  sea-  ^^"^  f^^se 
board,  provided  the  Americans  would  renounce 


184        Territorial  Problems 

all  claims  to  the  coveted  Mississippi  navigation ; 
and  Congress  yielded  the  point.  At  once  there 
arose  a  storm  of  protest  from  the  West,  and 
from  Virginia  as  the  mother  of  those  settlements. 
Some  canny  statesmen  coincided  with  Henry 
Lee  in  his  suggestion  that  "  in  agreeing  to  the 
occlusion  of  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi 
we  give  in  fact  nothing ;  that  the  moment  our 
Western  country  becomes  populous  and  capable, 
they  will  seize  by  force  what  may  have  been 
yielded  by  treaty."  In  Kentucky  people  thought 
force  might  more  profitably  be  used  at  the  be- 
ginning, and  committees  of  correspondence  were 
raised ;  in  the  Northwest  Territory  the  governor 
seized  the  property  of  a  Spaniard.  James  Wil- 
kinson, later  ranking  officer  of  the  American  army, 
was  in  treaty  with  the  Spaniards,  and  accepted 
an  annual  pension  from  them  to  push  the  secession 
of  Kentucky.  Congress  in  some  alarm  proposed 
forthwith  to  make  Kentucky  a  state ;  and  finally, 
by  common  consent,  the  whole  question  went 
over  till  the  new  Constitution  could  be  put  in 
force. 

Even  after  the  new  federal  government  had 
Danger  of  begun,  the  Mississippi  question  remained  serious, 
War.  179a.  ^j^^  jjj  J  ^^2  Alexander  Hamilton  said  that "  while 
he  was  for  delaying  the  event  of  war,  he  did  not 
doubt  it  would  take  place  between  us  for  the 
object  in  question."  Fortunately  the  Spanish 
government  found  it  expedient   to  settle    such 


Western  Country  185 

disputes,  and  in  1795  the  long  controversy  over  Spanish 
the  boundary  was  amicably  adjusted  by  the  '^^^^'  ^^^^* 
acceptance  of  the  line  assented  to  by  the  United 
States;  and  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi 
was  allowed  by  the  so-called  "  right  of  deposit " 
— that  is,  the  privilege  of  landing  goods  in  Span- 
ish territory  and  then  reshipping  them,  without 
responsibility  to  the  Spanish  custom-house. 

This  settlement  proved  only  a  palliative,  but 
it  showed  the  determination  of  the  Americans  to 
stand  sturdily  by  their  boundary  claims  and  to 
secure  territorial  advantages;  and  it  did  not 
escape  the  attention  of  wise  observers  that  it 
might  sometime  become  necessary  to  fight  for 
the  full  possession  of  the  mouth  of  the  Missis- 
sippi. 

During  the   first  decade  under   the  federal  63.  interest 
Constitution  the  nation  did  not  yet  know  its  own  j^**^'. 
strength,  or  venture  to  predict  its  own  future.   iSoa. 
The  geographer  Winterbotham,  in    1796,  ven- 
tured  to   say :   "  Federal   Americans,  collected 
together    from    various    countries,   of    various 
habits,    formed    under    different    governments, 
have  yet  to  form  their  national  character,  or  we 
may  rather  say,  it  is  in  a  forming  state.     They 
have  not  yet  existed  as  a  nation  long  enough  for 
us  to  form  an  idea  of  what  will  be,  in  its  matur- 
ity, its  prominent  features.     Judging,  however, 
from  its  present  promising  infancy,  we  are  en- 
couraged to  hope  that  at  some  future  period, 


1 86        Territorial  Problems 


Louisiana 
desired  by 
France, 
1795-1800. 


Cession  of 
iSoo. 


not  far  distant,  it  will,  in  every  point  of  view, 
be  respectable." 

The  geographical  and  political  conditions  of 
the  time  speedily  revived  the  spirit  of  political 
extension.  Americans  could  put  up  with  the 
exclusion  from  the  lower  Mississippi  and  the 
Gulf,  so  long  as  that  territory  was  in  the  hands 
of  weak  and  declining  Spain.  European  wars 
and  treaties  now  began,  however,  to  have  far- 
reaching  effects,  extending  to  the  New  World ; 
for  in  1795  and  1796  the  French  government 
began  to  urge  upon  Spain  the  transfer  of  the 
former  French  province  of  Louisiana ;  and  ac- 
tually secured  the  cession  of  the  Spanish  end  of 
the  island  of  San  Domingo.  No  progress  was 
made  until  1800,  when  Napoleon's  representa- 
tive courteously  suggested  that  "the  court  of 
Spain  will  do  then  at  once  a  wise  and  a  great 
act  if  it  calls  France  to  the  defence  of  its  colo- 
nies by  adding  Louisiana  to  them,  and  by  replac- 
ing in  their  hands  this  outpost  of  its  richest 
possession  in  the  New  World."  Yet  some  con- 
sideration had  to  be  offered  even  by  the  world- 
conquering  power,  and  France  proposed  to 
make  the  son-in-law  and  daughter  of  the  king 
of  Spain  king  and  queen  of  the  new  realm  of 
Etruria.  Upon  this  basis  was  concluded  the 
Treaty  of  San  Ildefonso,  of  October,  1800,  by 
which  Louisiana  was  ceded  to  France,  "with 
the  same  extent  that  it  now  has  in  the  hands  of 


Napoleon  187 

Spain  and  that  it  had  when  France  possessed 
it,  and  »uch  as  it  should  be  in  conformity  with 
the  treaties  entered  into  between  Spain  and 
other  states."  Poor  Spain,  having  thus  begun 
the  process  of  colonial  decay  by  parting  with 
Louisiana  for  a  bauble,  was  deprived  even  of 
the  bauble ;  for  the  new  king  and  queen  of 
Etruria  found  themselves  to  be  but  puppet 
sovereigns,  everywhere  limited  and  harassed  by 
French  officers,  who  practically  relieved  them 
of  the  cares  of  state. 

Month  after  month  passed  without  the  ex- 
pected order  for  the  transfer  of  Louisiana,  and 
in  August,  1 80 1,  Napoleon,  in  one  of  his  mas-  Napoleonic 
terful  letters,  said :  "  It  is  at  the  moment  when  ^7**^' 
the  First  Consul  gives  such  strong  proofs  of  his 
consideration  for  the  king  of  Spain,  and  places 
a  prince  of  his  house  upon  a  throne  which  is 
fruit  of  the  victories  of  French  arms,  that  a  tone 
is  taken  toward  the  French  Republic  such  as 
might  be  taken  with  impunity  toward  the  Re- 
public of  San  Marino.  .  .  .  The  First  Consul 
will  never  persuade  himself  that  his  Catholic 
Majesty  wishes  to  insult  the  French  people  and 
their  government  at  the  moment  when  these 
are  doing  so  much  for  Spain.  This  would  suit 
neither  his  heart  nor  his  loyalty,  nor  the  interest 
of  his  crown." 

In  the  middle  of  1802  rumors  of  the  transfer 
spread  to  America,  and  in  October  Spain  with- 


1 88        Territorial  Problems 

Alarm  in  the  drew  the  right  of  deposit,  that  is,  the  right  of 
Stat*es*i8o2.  transit  without  payment  of  duties,  and  did  not 
assign  the  new  place  promised  by  the  Treaty 
of  1795.  It  was  plain  that  the  colony  would 
speedily  be  transferred,  and  that  the  French 
would  receive  it  with  the  right  of  navigation 
suspended. 

From  a  quiet,  peaceful,  friendly,  home-loving 
nation  the  American  people  were  instantly 
Jefferson's  transformed  into  an  expansionist  power.  No 
o  »cy,  I  .  ^^^  ^^g  j^gg  inclined  to  use  force  for  pri- 
vate or  political  ends  than  Thomas  Jefferson 
—  philosopher,  scientist,  skilled  farmer,  buyer 
of  books,  writer  of  letters,  expounder  of  human 
freedom,  and  President  of  the  United  States  — 
yet  upon  him  fell  the  task  of  leading  the  nation 
into  an  unexpected  course  of  territorial  exten- 
sion. In  his  famous  letters  of  April  and  Octo- 
ber, 1802,  to  his  friend  Dupont  and  to  our 
minister  Livingston,  he  made  evident  at  the 
same  time  his  desire  for  peace,  his  sense  of 
danger  from  the  French  occupation,  and  his 
willingness  to  ally  with  England  in  order  to 
prevent  it.  "  We  see,"  he  said,  "  all  the  disad- 
vantageous consequences  of  taking  a  side,  and 
shall  be  forced  into  it  only  by  a  more  disagree- 
able alternative ;  in  which  event  we  must  coun- 
tervail the  disadvantages  by  measures  which 
will  give  us  splendor  and  power,  but  not  so 
much   happiness   as  our   present   system.  .  .  . 


Jefferson  189 


There  is  on  the  globe  one  single  spot  the  pos- 
sessor of  which  is  our  natural  and  habitual 
enemy.  It  is  New  Orleans,  through  which  the 
produce  of  three-eighths  of  our  territory  must 
pass  to  market,  and  from  its  fertility  it  will  ere 
long  yield  more  than  half  of  our  whole  produce, 
and  contain  more  than  half  of  our  inhabitants. 
France,  placing  herself  in  that  door,  assumes  to 
us  the  attitude  of  defiance.  Spain  might  have 
retained  it  quietly  for  years.  .  .  ." 

The  old-time  friend  of  France  did  not  stick.  Threat. 
He  goes  on  as  follows :  "  The  day  that  France 
takes  possession  of  New  Orleans  fixes  the  sen- 
tence which  is  to  retain  her  forever  within 
her  low-water  mark.  It  seals  the  union  of  two 
nations  who  in  conjunction  can  maintain  exclu- 
sive possession  of  the  ocean.  From  that  mo- 
ment we  must  marry  ourselves  to  the  British 
fleet  and  nation.  We  must  turn  all  our  atten- 
tion to  a  maritime  force,  for  which  our  resources 
place  us  on  very  high  ground ;  and  having 
formed  and  connected  together  a  power  which 
may  render  reenforcement  of  her  settlements 
here  impossible  to  France,  make  the  first  can- 
non which  shall  be  fired  in  Europe  the  signal 
for  the  tearing  up  of  any  settlement  she  may 
have  made,  and  for  holding  the  two  continents 
of  America  in  sequestration  for  the  common 
purposes  of  the  united  British  and  American 
nations." 


190        Territorial  Problems 


Congress, 
1803. 


63.  Annexa- 
tion of  Loui- 
siana, 1803. 


Negotiations 
for  West 
Florida,  1803. 


That  these  principles  were  the  principles  of 
the  nation  was  shown  by  the  readiness  with 
which  Congress  supported  the  thoroughgoing 
measures  proposed  by  the  President.  The  Fed- 
erals, then  in  opposition,  outdid  the  President 
by  an  immediate  and  vehement  demand  for  war. 
Senator  Ross  moved  that  fifty  thousand  men  be 
raised,  and  that  New  Orleans  be  seized  out  of 
hand  —  a  step  which  must  have  led  to  imme- 
diate war  with  France ;  and  Jefferson  said  with 
some  bitterness  that  the  Federalists  "  were  try- 
ing to  attach  the  Western  country  to  them  as 
their  best  friends,  and  thus  to  regain  power." 

Jefferson's  marvellous  control  over  Congress 
enabled  him  to  check  the  Federalists,  and  at  the 
same  time  to  take  three  decided  steps  —  in  Janu- 
ary, 1803,  Monroe  was  sent  as  a  special  envoy 
to  Paris ;  in  February  ;^2,ooo,ooo  were  appro- 
priated for  the  purchase  of  territory ;  and  in 
March  the  enlistment  of  eighty  thousand  volun- 
teers was  authorized.  Even  at  this  time,  how- 
ever, not  the  faintest  thought  of  the  purchase  of 
the  whole  territory  of  Louisiana  appears  to  have 
crossed  Jefferson's  mind.  "  The  country  which 
we  wish  to  purchase,"  said  he,  "is  a  barren 
sand,  six  hundred  miles  from  east  to  west  and 
from  thirty  to  fifty  miles  from  north  to  south  "  ; 
and  in  his  instructions  to  Monroe  and  Living- 
ston they  were  directed  to  obtain  New  Orleans 
and  West  and  East  Florida,  or  as  much  of  them 


Louisiana  191 

as  could  be  had  —  that  is,  to  extend  the  western 
boundary  down  the  Mississippi  to  its  mouth, 
and  the  southern  boundary  from  the  thirty-first 
parallel  to  the  Gulf.  Failing  in  this  negotia- 
tion, the  envoys  were  instructed  to  make  a  mili- 
tary combination  with  England. 

This  was  not  the  first  or  the  last  time  that 
the  United  States  sought  a  small  territory  and 
got  a  large  one.  Just  as  George  Rogers  Clark's 
capture  of  two  frontier  posts  gave  rise  to  the 
occupation  of  a  vast  territory  between  the  Mis- 
sissippi and  the  mountains,  and  just  as  the  ex- 
pedition to  Cuba  led  to  the  annexation  of  the 
Philippine  Islands,  so  Monroe  and  Livingston 
sought  for  twenty  thousand  miles  of  barren  sand 
and  brought  home  six  hundred  thousand  miles 
of  empire. 

People  speak  of  the  "  Louisiana  negotiations  " 
as  though  there  had  been  two  sides  and  a  bal- 
ancing of  propositions.  In  reality  the  province  Napoleon  on 
was  thrown  to  the  United  States,  as  the  Caliph  J^"^'*"*" 
Harun-al-Rashid  might  have  given  a  palace  to 
a  poor  merchant  who  had  admired  the  portico. 
While  Livingston  was  toiling  for  West  Florida, 
one  day  Marbois,  the  French  negotiator,  threw 
out,  "  as  a  suggestion  of  his  own,"  that  perhaps 
the  United  States  would  offer  a  price  for  all 
Louisiana.  Livingston  hesitated,  and  suggested 
5^6,000,000,  pleading  lack  of  powers.  The  next 
day  he  was   joined   by   Monroe,  and  together 


192        Territorial  Problems 

they  agreed  that  some  arrangement  must  be 
made. 

Livingston  would  hardly  have  continued  to 
haggle  over  the  price  had  he  known  the  pow- 
erful influences  brought  to  bear  on  Napoleon. 
Lucien  and  Joseph  Buonaparte  went  to  see  their 
brother  even  in  his  bath,  and  Joseph  ventured  to 
declare,  "  I  will  be  the  first  one  to  place  myself, 
if  it  is  necessary,  at  the  head  of  the  opposition 
which  cannot  fail  to  be  made  to  you."  The 
First  Consul  replied  only  with  a  burst  of  sar- 
donic laughter. 

"  Laugh,  laugh,  laugh,  then !  "  said  Joseph, 
"nevertheless  I  will  do  what  I  say,  and  though 
I  do  not  like  to  mount  the  tribune,  this  time  they 
shall  see  me  there."  "  To  these  words,"  reports 
Lucien,  "  the  Consul,  lifting  himself  halfway  out 
of  the  bathtub,  in  which  he  had  sunk  down 
again,  said  to  him,  in  a  tone  which  I  will  call 
energetically  serious  and  solemn,  '  You  will  have 
no  need  to  stand  forth  as  the  orator  of  the  oppo- 
sition, for  I  repeat  that  this  discussion  will  not 
take  place,  for  the  reason  that  the  plan  which  is 
not  sufficient  even  to  obtain  your  approbation, 
conceived  by  me,  negotiated  by  me,  will  be  rati- 
fied and  executed  by  me  all  alone  —  do  you 
understand.'  —  by  me,  who  snap  my  fingers  at 
your  opposition.'  " 

No  longer  was  resistance  possible  against 
this    terrible    man.      The   American    offer    of 


Louisiana  Treaty 


193 


$15,000,000  for  the  territory  was  accepted,  and  Louisiana 

on  April  30,   1803,  the  treaty  was  duly  made.  ^^^^'  ^^' 

The  ceremonies  of  transfer,  then  novel  in  the 

experience  of  the  United  States,  may  perhaps 

be  a  useful  precedent :  "  Being  convened  in  the 

hall  of  the   H6tel  de  Ville  of   New  Orleans,"  Transfer  of 

reported  Governor  Claiborne  and  General  Wil-  J^^'*"^ 

kinson,   "  the    commissioners    accompanied   on 

both   sides  by  the  chiefs  and   officers   of  the 

army  and  navy,  by  the  municipalities  and  divers 

respectable  citizens  of  their  respective  repub- 

licks,   .   .  .  Citizen    Loussat  .   .  .  delivered  to 

the  said  Commissioners  of  the  United  States 

in  their  publick  sitting  the  keys  of  the  city  of 

New  Orleans,  declaring  that  he  discharges  from 

their  oaths  of  fidelity  to  the  French  Republick 

the  citizens  and  inhabitants  of  Louisiana." 

So  completely  Americanized  are  the  present  People  of 
states  of  Louisiana,  Arkansas,  Missouri,  Texas,  1803'^'*"^' 
and  Florida,  that  we  do  not  realize  how  alien  in 
spirit  they  were  when  they  entered  our  bounda- 
ries, and  what  difficulties  had  to  be  overcome  in 
their  colonial  development.  When  Louisiana 
was  annexed  in  1803,  it  had  a  population  of  about 
42,000,  as  against  5,500,000  in  the  rest  of  the 
United  States.  There  was  a  state  church,  a 
system  of  civil  law  founded  on  Roman  juris- 
prudence, and  most  of  the  people,  black  and 
white,  understood  no  language  except  French. 
Since  1769  the  government  had  been  the  harsh 


194        Teyyitorial  Proble^ns 

and  corrupt  rule  of  Spanish  officials,  themselves 
disliked  by  the  people. 

To  complete  the  transaction  Jefferson  had 
to  deal  with  a  Senate  which  must  confirm  the 
treaty,  and  a  Congress  by  which  the  necessary 
money  must  be  voted ;  and  in  the  discussion  of 
the  question  in  the  Senate  and  House  the  vari- 
ous opinions  of  the  American  people  were  dis- 
tinctly brought  out.  In  the  special  session  of 
Congress  called  to  consider  the  Louisiana  treaty 
in  October,  1803,  the  territorial  powers  of  the 
United  States  and  the  relations  of  the  new 
country  were  for  the  first  time  clearly  analyzed. 
64.  Con-  A  somewhat  indolent  gentleman,  who  found 

^^nstit^  it  troublesome  to  perform  his  devotions  every 
tionai  Objeo-  night,  simply  wrote  a  prayer,  which  he  pinned 
Annexation  ^°  ^^  head  of  his  bed,  and  remarked,  from 
1803.  evening  to  evening,  "  Lord,  those  are  my  senti- 

ments." It  would  seem  as  though  the  same 
labor-saving  device  might  well  be  applied  to  the 
discussions  of  territorial  policies  and  powers,  for 
in  the  debates  of  1898  and  1899  were  stated 
with  more  prolixity  and  less  cogency  the  same 
passionate  objections  and  the  same  rejoinders 
which  busied  the  minds  of  the  Senate  and  the 
House  in  October,  1803.  A  summary  of  the 
arguments,  pro  and  con,  with  some  brief  ex- 
tracts, may  therefore  serve  as  an  unconscious 
commentary  upon  the  questions  of  Cuba,  Porto 
Rico,  and  the  Philippines. 


Federal  Objections         195 

First  of  all  came  the  question  whether,  in  French  Title, 
strict  international  law,  France  had  anything  to 
transfer.  The  Spanish  government  lodged  a 
protest  against  the  cession  of  the  province,  on 
the  ground  that  it  had  not  been  paid  for,  that  it 
had  not  been  transferred,  and  that  France  had 
promised  never  to  cede  it  to  any  other  power 
than  Spain.  This  question  Jefferson  quietly 
but  effectively  disposed  of  by  saying  that  we 
had  our  title  from  Napoleon,  and  "did  not 
doubt  his  guarantees." 

The  constitutionality  of  the  annexation  of  ter-  Federal  Doc- 
ritory  in  some  form  was  admitted  even  by  Picker- 
ing, the  great  anti-expansionist  of  his  time,  who 
declared  that  he  *'  had  never  doubted  the  right 
of  the  United  States  to  acquire  new  territory, 
either  by  purchase  or  by  conquest,  and  to  govern 
the  territory  so  acquired  as  a  dependent  prov- 
ince, and  in  this  way  might  Louisiana  have 
become  a  territory  of  the  United  States,  and 
have  received  a  form  of  government  infinitely 
preferable  to  that  to  which  its  inhabitants  are 
now  subject " ;  and  Taylor  insisted  that  the 
words  of  the  treaty  were  "  literally  satisfied  by 
incorporating  them  [the  people  of  Louisiana] 
into  the  Union  as  a  territory  and  not  as  a  state." 

Pickering,  however,  laid  down  two  limitations  Admission 
upon  the  admission  of  territory.     The  first  was  un'ion.*^ 
that   "a  treaty  to  be  thus  obligatory  must  not 
contravene   the    Constitution,  nor   contain   any 


196        Territorial  Problems 


Unanimous 
Consent. 


Voidance 
of  the  Treaty. 


French  Ship- 
ping. 


Stipulations  which  transcend  the  powers  therein 
given  to  the  President  and  Senate ";  therefore 
he  objected  to  that  article  of  the  treaty  which 
provided  that  "  the  inhabitants  of  the  ceded  ter- 
ritory shall  be  incorporated  in  the  Union  of  the 
United  States."  Pickering's  second  objection 
was  not  only  far-fetched,  but  was  later  refuted 
practically  in  the  annexations  of  Louisiana  and 
Texas.  "  He  believed  the  assent  of  each  indi- 
vidual state  to  be  necessary  for  the  admission  of 
a  foreign  country  as  an  associate  in  the  Union, 
in  like  manner  as  in  a  commercial  house  the  con- 
sent of  each  member  would  be  necessary  to  ad- 
mit a  new  partner  into  the  company."  A  mare's 
nest  was  found  by  Pickering  in  the  danger  that 
France  would  reclaim  the  province,  if  the  Louisi- 
anians  were  not  speedily  admitted  to  the  Union : 
"If,  therefore,  in  respect  to  the  Louisiana  treaty, 
the  United  States  fail  to  execute,  and  within  a 
reasonable  time,  the  engagement  in  the  third 
article  (to  incorporate  that  territory  into  the 
Union),  the  French  government  will  have  a  right 
to  declare  the  whole  treaty  void.  We  must  then 
abandon  the  country,  or  go  to  war  to  maintain 
our  possession." 

Another  constitutional  stumbling-block  was 
the  article  of  the  treaty  which  for  twelve  years 
admitted  ships  of  France  and  Spain  into  the 
ceded  territory  without  special  tonnage  duties, 
a  privilege  which  the  Federal  Tracy  said  "is 


Constitutional  Objections     197 

giving  a  commercial  preference  to  those  ports 
over  the  other  ports  of  the  United  States." 

The  argument  that  the  Constitution  was  not  ConstituUon 
framed  for  extension  of  territory  was  thus  stated  n°°  ^'^ci^" 
by  G.  Griswold :  "  It  was  not  consistent  with  sions. 
the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  that  territory  other 
than  that  attached  to  the  United  States  at  the 
time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  should 
be  admitted ;  because  at  that  time  the  persons 
who  formed  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  had  a  particular  respect  to  the  then 
subsisting  territory."  Griswold  also  clearly 
enounced  the  doctrine  that  the  lower  House 
must  participate  in  all  admission  of  territory,  and 
that  Congress  must  stand  against  the  President : 
"  If  the  right  of  extending  our  territory  be  given 
by  the  Constitution,  its  exercise  is  vested  in  the 
Legislative  branches  of  the  government.  .  .  . 
He  contended,  therefore,  that  the  power  to  in-  Executive 
corporate  new  territory  did  not  exist,  and  that,  if  Usurpation. 
it  did  exist,  it  belonged  to  the  Legislature,  and 
not  the  Executive,  to  incorporate  it  in  the  Union. 
If  this  were  the  case,  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
House  to  resist  the  usurped  power  exercised 
by  the  Executive."  Reference  was  also  made 
to  the  principle  that  the  authority  of  Congress 
must  be  distinctly  set  forth  in  the  Constitution  : 
"  If  such  a  power  be  not  expressly  vested,  it 
must  be  reserved  to  the  people." 

So  evident  were  the  practical  advantages  of 


IqS        Territorial  Problems 

annexing  Louisiana  that  much  of  the  anti-an- 
nexation  argument  was    directed   against    the 
Future  State-  future  Creation  of  a  new  state,  from  which  would 
hood,  come  senators  and  representatives.    Even  Roger 

Griswold  admitted  that  "a  new  territory  and 
new  subjects  may  undoubtedly  be  obtained  by 
conquest  and  by  purchase ;  but  neither  the  con- 
quest nor  the  purchase  can  incorporate  them 
into  the  Union.  They  must  remain  in  the  con- 
dition of  colonies,  and  be  governed  accordingly. 
The  objection  to  the  third  article  is  not  that  the 
province  of  Louisiana  could  not  have  been  pur- 
chased, but  that  neither  this  nor  any  other  for- 
eign nation  can  be  incorporated  into  the  Union 
by  treaty  or  by  a  law." 
Randolph's  John  Randolph,  effectively,  though  somewhat 
Quip.  rudely,  recalled  the  recent  Federalist  desire  to 

fight  for  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi,  "If 
then,"  said  he,  "  to  acquire  the  navigation  of  the 
river,  with  the  bare  right  of  deposit,  would  have 
justified  hostility,  surely  the  acquisition  of  the 
island  of  New  Orleans  and  both  banks  of  the 
river,  giving  a  perfect  security  to  our  navigation, 
and  the  entire,  uninterrupted  control  of  the 
river,  would  have  justified  an  appeal  to  arms  — 
unless  the  unlucky  ingenuity  of  the  gentleman 
from  Connecticut  [R.  Griswold]  would  undertake 
to  prove  that  a  part  was  less  than  the  whole  ;  and 
that  although  the  attaining  of  a  qualified  and 
precarious  right  to   a  given   object   furnished 


Expediency  199 

good  cause  for  war,  yet  to  acquire  an  unqualified 
and  secure  right  to  the  same  object  would  not 
justify  hostility." 

The  Senate  and  the  House  of  1803,  the  peo-  65.  Contem- 
ple  of  that  time,  the  experience  of  a  century,  objSonsof 
and  common  sense,  unite  in  the  conclusion  that  Expediency 
the  United  States  may  constitutionally  acquire  Louisiana 
territory  by  either  conquest,  purchase,  or  volun-  1803. 
tary  cession,  and  that  out  of  that  territory  may 
be  created  new  federal  states.  But  this  does 
not  touch  that  question  of  expediency,  upon 
which  the  objectors  of  1803  expended  so  much 
ingenuity.  As  Breckinridge  expressed  it :  "  Un- 
fortunately for  the  gentlemen,  no  two  of  them 
can  agree  on  the  same  set  of  objections;  and 
what  is  still  more  unfortunate,  I  believe  that  no 
two  of  them  concur  in  any  one  objection.  In 
one  thing  only  they  seem  to  agree,  and  that  is  to 
vote  against  the  bill.  An  honorable  gentleman 
from  Delaware  (Mr.  White)  considers  the  price 
to  be  enormous.  An  honorable  gentleman  from 
Connecticut  who  has  just  sat  down  (Mr.  Tracy) 
says  he  has  no  objection  whatever  to  the  price  ; 
it  is,  he  supposes,  not  too  much.  An  honorable 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Pickering) 
says  that  France  acquired  no  title  from  Spain, 
and  therefore  our  title  is  bad.  The  same  gentle- 
man from  Connecticut  (Mr.  Tracy)  says  he  has 
no  objection  to  the  title  of  France ;  he  thinks  it 
is  a  good  one.     The  gentleman  from  Massachu- 


200        Territorial  Problems 


setts  (Mr.  Pickering)  contends  that  the  United 
States  cannot,  under  the  Constitution,  acquire 
foreign  territory.  The  gentleman  from  Connecti- 
cut is  of  a  different  opinion,  and  has  no  doubt 
but  that  the  United  States  can  acquire  and  hold 
foreign  territory,  but  that  Congress  alone  has 
the  power  of  incorporating  that  territory  into 
the  Union.  Of  what  weight,  therefore,  ought 
all  their  lesser  objections  be  entitled  to,  when 
they  are  at  war  among  themselves  on  the 
greater  one } " 

Distance.  The  favorite  objection  was  the  distance  of  the 

new  territory.  As  White  expressed  it :  "  But  as 
to  Louisiana,  this  new,  immense,  unbounded 
world,  if  it  should  ever  be  incorporated  into 
this  Union,  which  I  have  no  idea  can  be  done 
but  by  altering  the  Constitution,  I  believe  it  will 
be  the  greatest  curse  that  could  at  present  befall 
us.  .  .  .  You  had  as  well  pretend  to  inhibit  the 
fish  from  swimming  in  the  sea  as  to  prevent  the 
population  of  that  country  after  its  sovereignty 
shall  become  ours.  To  every  man  acquainted 
with  the  adventurous,  roving,  and  enterprising 
temper  of  our  people,  and  with  the  manner  in 

Emigration,  which  our  Western  country  has  been  settled, 
such  an  idea  must  be  chimerical.  Thus  our  citi- 
zens will  be  removed  to  the  immense  distance  of 
two  or  three  thousand  miles  from  the  capital  of 
the  Union,  where  they  will  scarcely  ever  feel  the 
rays  of  the  General  Government.     Their  affec- 


Inhabitants  201 

tions  will  become  alienated ;  they  will  gradually  Secession, 
begin  to  view  us  as  strangers;  they  will  form 
other  commercial  connections ;  and  our  interests 
will  become  distinct.  These,  with  other  causes 
that  human  wisdom  may  not  now  foresee,  will  in 
time  affect  a  separation,  and  I  fear  our  bounds 
will  be  fixed  nearer  to  our  houses  than  the 
waters  of  the  Mississippi,  We  have  already 
territory  enough,  and  when  I  contemplate  the  No  Need, 
evils  that  may  arise  to  these  states  from  this 
intended  incorporation  of  Louisiana  into  the 
Union,  I  would  rather  see  it  given  to  France,  to 
Spain,  or  to  any  other  nation  of  the  earth,  upon 
the  mere  condition  that  no  citizen  of  the  United 
States  should  ever  settle  within  its  limits,  than 
to  see  the  territory  sold  for  an  hundred  millions 
of  dollars  and  we  retain  the  sovereignty." 

To  these  difficulties  of  immense  distance  and  Character  of 
lack  of  cohesion,  was  added  the  argument  that    °  ^  '**°'^' 
the  territory  and  its  inhabitants  were  distinctly 
undesirable.     As  Tracy  put  it :  "  The  principle 
of  admission,  in  the  case  of    Louisiana,  is  the 
same  as  if   it  contained  ten  millions  of  inhabi- 
tants ;    and  the  principles  of   these  people  are 
probably  as   hostile  to  our   government,  in   its 
true  construction,  as  they  can  be,  and  the  rela- 
tive strength  which  this  admission  gives  to  a  Sectional 
Southern  and  Western  interest  is  contradictory     "^8"™*^"'- 
to  the  principles  of   our  original  Union  as  any 
can    be,    however    strongly   stated."      Another 


202        Territorial  Problems 


Health. 


Constitution 
for  lis  alone. 


member,  Griffin,  took  up  the  question  of  the 
health  of  the  settlers  and  troops.  He  "  feared 
the  effects  of  the  vast  extent  of  our  empire ; 
he  feared  the  effects  of  the  increased  value  of 
labor ;  the  decrease  in  the  value  of  lands,  the  in- 
fluence of  climate  upon  our  citizens  who  should 
migrate  thither.  He  did  fear  (though  this  land 
was  represented  as  flowing  with  milk  and  honey) 
that  this  Eden  of  the  New  World  would  prove  a 
cemetery  for  the  bodies  of  our  citizens." 

Another,  R.  Griswold,  plainly  stated  the  politi- 
cal principle  that  charity  begins  at  home.  "  The 
government  of  the  United  States  was  not 
formed  for  the  purpose  of  distributing  its  prin- 
ciples and  advantages  to  foreign  nations.  It 
was  formed  with  the  sole  view  of  securing  those 
blessings  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity."  The 
Native  Wars,  dangers  of  wars  with  the  natives  was  not  forgot- 
ten. As  White  put  it :  "  It  may  be  productive 
of  innumerable  evils,  and  especially  of  one  that 
I  fear  even  to  look  upon.  Gentlemen  on  all 
sides,  with  very  few  exceptions,  agree  that  the 
settlement  of  this  country  will  be  highly  injuri- 
ous and  dangerous  to  the  United  States ;  but  as 
to  what  has  been  suggested  of  removing  the 
Creeks  and  other  nations  of  Indians  from  the 
eastern  to  the  western  banks  of  the  Mississippi, 
and  of  making  the  fertile  regions  of  Louisiana 
a  howling  wilderness,  never  to  be  trodden  by  the 
foot  of  civilized  man,  it  is  impracticable." 


Expense  203 

Another  objection  was  the  cost  of  the  terri-  Expense. 
tory.  White  declared  "  that  under  existing  cir- 
cumstances, even  supposing  that  this  extent  of 
territory  was  a  desirable  acquisition,  fifteen  mill- 
ions of  dollars  was  a  most  enormous  sum  to 
give."  Another  argument,  stated  by  Mr.  Wells, 
was  the  distrust  of  the  President's  influence : 
"  The  question  which  presents  itself  to  my  mind 
is,  who  shall  judge  whether  the  French  govern- 
ment does  or  does  not  faithfully  comply  with 
the  previous  condition  }  The  bill  on  your  table 
gives  to  the  President  this  power.  I  am  for  our 
retaining  and  exercising  it  ourselves.  I  may  be 
asked,  why  not  delegate  this  power  to  the  Presi- 
dent }  Sir,  I  answer  by  inquiring,  why  we  should 
delegate  it.^  To  us  it  properly  belongs;  and 
unless  some  advantage  will  be  derived  to  the 
United  States,  it  shall  not  be  transferred  with 
my  consent." 

To  sum  up  the  objections  to  the  treaty :  summary. 
France  had  no  right  to  cede  it;  the  United 
States  had  no  right  to  receive  it,  under  the  con- 
ditions of  the  treaty ;  it  was  not  worth  having 
on  any  terms ;  it  was  vast ;  it  would  disturb  the 
balance  of  the  Union ;  it  would  draw  valued  in- 
habitants from  other  parts  of  the  United  States ; 
it  would  poison  the  settlers ;  the  treaty  was  an 
extra-constitutional  proceeding ;  the  President 
and  Senate  did  not  represent  the  opinion  of  the 
country;    and   patriotic  men  ought  to   oppose 


204        Territorial  Problems 

"  such  a  pernicious  measure  as  the  admission  of 
Louisiana,  of  a  world,  and  such  a  world,  into 
our  Union." 
66.  Contem-  In  those  distant  times,  as  at  the  present  day, 
guments  for  ^^"^^  "^6^^  thought  the  annexation  of  territory 
Annexation  prima  facie  desirable,  and  were  willing  to  face 
1803.  °  '  the  difficulties  and  dangers  of  the  process.  The 
most  cogent  of  these  was  John  Quincy  Adams, 
then  Senator  from  Massachusetts.  His  argu- 
ment is  set  forth  in  two  striking  passages : 
"  Allowing  even  that  this  is  a  case  for  which 
the  Constitution  has  not  provided,  it  does  not  in 
my  mind  follow  that  the  treaty  is  a  nullity,  or 
that  its  obligations,  either  on  us  or  on  France, 
must  necessarily  be  cancelled.  .  .  .  Notwith- 
standing the  objections  and  apprehensions  of 
many  individuals,  of  many  wise,  able,  and  ex- 
cellent men,  in  various  parts  of  the  Union,  yet 
such  is  the  public  favor  attending  the  transac- 
tion which  commenced  by  the  negotiation  of 
this  treaty,  and  which  I  hope  will  terminate  in 
our  full,  undisturbed,  and  undisputed  possession 
of  the  ceded  territory,  that  I  firmly  believe  that 
if  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  amply 
sufficient  for  the  accomplishment  of  everything 
for  which  we  have  contracted,  shall  be  proposed, 
as  I  think  it  ought,  it  will  be  adopted  by  the 
legislature  of  every  state  in  the  Union." 
Imperialism  The  danger  of  imperialism  to  free  institutions 
considered,     ^^g  considered  and  confronted  by  Elliot,  who 


Expansion  205 

found  the  joint  in  the  harness  of  the  opposition 
with  the  phrase :  "  Indeed  the  gentlemen  who 
deny  us  the  right  of  acquiring  by  purchase, 
would  probably  allow  us  to  keep  the  territory, 
were  it  obtained  by  conquest.  .  .  .  Evils  and 
dangers  may  be  apprehended  from  this  source, 
and  great  evils  and  dangers  may  possibly  re- 
sult. ...  If  we  cannot  find  in  the  peculiar 
principles  of  our  form  of  government,  and  in 
the  virtue  and  intelligence  of  our  citizens,  a 
sufficient  security  against  the  dangers  from  a 
widely  extended  territory,  in  vain  shall  we  seek 
it  elsewhere.  There  is  no  magical  quality  in  a 
degree  of  latitude  or  longitude,  a  river  or 
a  mountain." 

The  inherent  right  of  the  nation  to  increase  Natural 
territory  was  defended  by  Nicholson  :  "  Had  I  Exp^"*'^"- 
been  asked  anywhere  but  in  this  House  whether 
a  sovereign  nation  had  a  right  to  acquire  new 
territory,  I  should  have  thought  the  question  an 
absurd  one.  It  appears  to  me  too  plain  and 
undeniable  to  admit  of  demonstration.  Is  it 
necessary  to  resort  to  ancient  authorities  to  es- 
tablish a  position  which  is  proved  by  the  conduct 
pursued  by  all  nations  from  the  earliest  periods 
of  the  world,  and  which  arises  from  the  very 
nature  of  society  }  " 

The  ability  of  the  country  to  bear  the  strain  strain  of 
of  colonies  was  defended  by  John  Randolph:  Colonies. 
"  But  it  is  dreaded  that  so  widely  extended  a 


2o6        Territorial  Problems 


Executive 
Authority. 


Posterity. 


country  cannot  subsist  under  a  republican  gov- 
ernment. If  this  dogma  be  indisputable,  I  fear 
we  have  already  far  exceeded  the  limits  which 
visionary  speculatists  have  supposed  capable  of 
free  government.  This  argument,  so  far  as  it 
goes,  would  prove  that,  instead  of  acquiring,  we 
ought  to  divest  ourselves  of  territory." 

The  authority  of  the  President  to  establish  a 
temporary  government  was  clearly  set  forth  by 
Jackson  :  "  Gentlemen,  indeed,  had  doubted,  on 
a  former  occasion,  the  propriety  of  giving  the 
President  the  power  of  taking  possession  and 
organizing  a  temporary  government,  which  every 
inferior  officer,  in  case  of  conquest  or  cession, 
from  the  general  to  the  subaltern,  if  command- 
ing, has  a  right  to  do ;  but  I  little  expected  these 
doubts,  after  we  had  gone  so  far.  For  my  part, 
sir,  I  have  none  of  those  fears.  I  believe  the 
President  will  be  as  cautious  as  ourselves."  The 
same  speaker  ventured  a  reference  to  posterity : 
"  In  a  century,  sir,  we  shall  be  well  populated, 
and  prepared  to  extend  our  settlements,  and 
that  world  of  itself  will  present  itself  to  our  ap- 
proaches, and  instead  of  the  description  given  of 
it  by  the  honorable  gentleman,  of  making  it  a 
howling  wilderness,  where  no  civilized  foot  shall 
ever  tread,  if  we  could  return  at  the  proper 
period  we  should  find  it  the  seat  of  science  and 
civilization." 

Though  bold  enough  to  enlarge  his  country, 


Louisiana  Annexed        207 

Jeflferson  still  had  constitutional  qualms,  which  Treaty 
were  not  removed  by  the  Senate  vote  of  24  to  7  "*'  *  " 
ratifying  the  treaty,  nor  by  the  House  vote  of 
90  to  25  granting  the  necessary  appropriation. 
Hence  the  President  drew  up  a  constitutional 
amendment  intended  to  be  an  indemnity  for 
him,  and  to  define  the  principles  of  annexation 
for  later  times ;  but  his  own  friends  laughed  at 
the  idea,  and  from  that  day  to  this  the  territory 
has  remained  a  part  of  the  United  States,  with 
no  further  constitutional  controversies. 

So  far  in  the  territorial  history  of  the  country  67.  spirit  of 
all  the  annexations,  except  that  of  the  South-  •^"""tio" 

'  ^  as  to  Oregon, 

west,  had  come  about  through  force  of  circum-  1803-1807. 

stances  rather  than  any  determined  plan  of  the 
American  government.  The  only  annexation 
as  yet  proposed  by  the  President  had  been  the 
Floridas,  which  did  not  come  to  the  United 
States  by  the  treaty  of  1803,  and  were  secured 
only  by  a  later  process  of  mingled  force 
and  diplomacy.  The  annexation  of  Louisiana 
plainly  enlarged  the  imagination  of  the  Presi- 
dent, who  was  the  first  man  in  the  country  to 
awake  to  the  importance  of  a  Pacific  front. 
In  1787,  while  still  ambassador  to  France,  Jefferson's 
Jefferson  fell  in  with  one  John  Ledyard  of  ,787^™*' 
Connecticut,  and  proposed  to  him  to  cross  Asia 
to  the  Pacific,  and  thence  to  the  west  coast  of 
America,  "to  follow  down  into  the  latitude  of 
the  Missouri,  and  penetrate  it,  and  through  that 


2o8        Territorial  Problems 


Jefferson's 

Interest, 

1792. 


JefiFerson's 
Plan,  1803. 


Instructions 
to  Lewis. 


to  the  United  States."  Ledyard  was  turneA 
back  by  the  Russian  government;  but  in  1792 
the  attention  of  Jefferson,  as  Secretary  of  State, 
was  attracted  to  the  discovery  of  the  Columbia 
River  by  the  ship  Columbia  of  Boston ;  and  h^ 
suggested  that  the  American  Philosophical  So- 
ciety should  send  explorers  in  the  reverse  di- 
rection, "ascending  the  Missouri,  crossing  the 
Stony  Mountains,  and  descending  the  nearest 
river  to  the  Pacific," 

As  President,  Jefferson  had  a  better  oppor- 
tunity to  carry  out  these  views,  and  in  January, 
1803,  just  before  the  Louisiana  question  blew 
up  into  a  storm,  he  asked  and  obtained  an  ap- 
propriation to  send  an  exploring  party  across 
the  continent,  and  he  designated  as  head  of  the 
expedition  Meriwether  Lewis,  then  his  private 
secretary.  It  was  fortunate  for  the  country 
that  the  man  who  stood  at  the  head  of  the 
government  was  keen  in  geographical  science, 
and  showed  a  determination  to  take  advantage 
of  favorable  opportunities  for  the  extension  of 
territory.  Before  the  expedition  could  get  off, 
Louisiana  had  been  ceded,  but  Lewis's  instruc- 
tions were  drawn  before  the  news  arrived,  and 
to  Jefferson  must  therefore  be  credited  some- 
thing more  than  mere  scientific  interest  in 
exploring  the  upper  Missouri  and  finding  a 
practical  road  across  the  mountains.  The  in- 
structions were  an  excellent  example  of  shrewd 


Oregon  209 

and  judicious  preparation :  Lewis  was  instructed 
to  map  the  rivers  by  accurate  determinations  of 
longitude  and  latitude,  to  make  several  copies 
of  his  notes,  and  especially  to  study  the  charac- 
teristics and  trade  of  the  Indians. 

So  well  were  these  instructions  followed  that 
nine  members  of  the  expedition  kept  journals,  journals, 
most  of   which   have  been    made  public ;    and 
hence  we  have  a  most  entertaining  and  romantic 
account  of  the  first  expedition  of  discovery  sent 
out  by  the  United  States  of  America.     Too  late 
to  ascend  the  Missouri  in  1803,  they  started  up 
in  May,   1804,  with   forty-five  men,  and  after  On  the  Mis- 
one  hundred  and  seventy-one  days'  travel,  found  ^°""'  ^^ 
themselves  sixteen  hundred  miles  up  the  river. 
In  the  spring  of  1805  they  set  out  once  more, 
guided  by  the  mysterious  "  Bird  woman  "  carry- 
ing  her   pappoose;    and    on   August   12   they 
reached  a  place  where  one  of  the  party  bestrode 
the  Missouri  River,  up  which  they  had  labored 
so  many  months,  and  a  part  of  the  expedition 
then   went   on   to   a   point    on   the   mountains 
whence  the  streams  flowed  away  westward.     In  On  the  Pa- 
November  they  reached  the  mouth  of  the  Co-  '^'^'^  Slope, 
lumbia,  four  thousand  miles  from  St.  Louis. 

The  political  importance  of  this  adventurous  importance, 
journey  lies  in  the  fact  that  J^^fferson  set  the 
example  for  expeditions  of  a  similar  kind,  and 
thus   forged   the   most   important  link  in  that 
chain  of  claims  which  eventually  gave  us  the 


2IO        Territorial  Problems 

Pacific  coast,  A  few  years  later  John  Jacob 
Astor  established  a  fur-trading  station  in  the  re- 
gion made  known  by  Lewis  and  Clark ;  still  a 
few  years  and  there  began  the  movement  of  that 
band  of  hardy  settlers  who  were  to  occupy  the 
land,  and  to  complete  the  right  of  the  United 
States  to  its  share  of  savage  America.  Sooner 
or  later  the  tide  of  exploration,  of  settlement, 
and  of  occupation  must  have  rolled  up  the  Mis- 
souri Valley  and  over  to  the  Pacific.  It  was 
the  peculiar  service  of  Jefferson  to  anticipate 
this  intrusion  and  to  prepare  for  the  expansion 
of  the  United  States. 

If  this  study  were  carried  farther  forward, 
the    same   evident,   hearty,   and    unappeasable 
Land-  Anglo-Saxon  land-hunger  would  be  found  ap- 

hu°ger.  pearing  in  the  War  of   1812,  in  the  boundary 

controversies  with  Great  Britain,  in  the  annexa- 
tions of  Texas  and  California.  Whether  that 
was  a  right  and  wholesome  hunger  must  be 
determined  from  the  last  fifty  years  of  national 
history.  But  wise  or  unwise,  far-seeing  or  hap- 
hazard, consecutive  or  accidental,  good  or  evil, 
the  policy  of  our  forefathers  was  a  policy  of 
territorial  extension,  and  they  met  and  supposed 
that  they  had  surmounted  most  of  the  problems 
which  have  now  returned  to  vex  American  public 
men,  and  to  give  concern  to  those  who  love 
their  country. 


VII 

THE   MONROE   DOCTRINE    AND   THE 

DOCTRINE  OF   PERMANENT 

INTEREST 

-•« 
Some  years  ago  it  was  the  pleasure  of  the  68.  Various 

writer  to  hear  from  the  lips  of  one  of  the  most  ^j^^ 
distinguished  Tammany  district  leaders  a  public 
defence  of  his  alnta  mater.  "Tammany  Hall," 
said  this  patriot,  "is  a  benevolent  institution; 
Tammany  Hall  is  a  patriotic  institution;  Tam- 
many Hall  is  a  philanthropic  institution ;  Tam- 
many Hall  has  the  honor  of  being  the  first  to 
propose  that  immortal  Monroe  doctrine  which 
blesses  and  revivifies  the  world."  This  remark- 
able statement  suggests  widespread  popular  in- 
terest in  a  doctrine  the  scope  of  which  appears 
to  be  very  different  in  different  minds.  To  the 
statesman,  the  editor,  the  orator,  and  the  writer 
of  magazine  articles,  the  phrase  "  Monroe  doc- 
trine" appears  often  very  like  "that  blessed 
word,  Mesopotamia,"  which  so  comforted  and 
invigorated  the  poor  old  mother  in  Israel ;  it  is 
a  cult  rather  than  a  clearly  defined  principle. 

Out  of  the  many  senses  in  which  this  perhaps 
overworked  phrase  has  been  used,  four  may  be 


212 


Monroe  Doctrine 


Analysis- 


Possible 
Substitute. 


! 


selected  as  the  most  important  and  most  widely 
known.  The  first  of  these  is  the  original  prin- 
ciple as  stated  by  President  Monroe  in  1823. 
The  second  is  Polk's  averment  —  from  1845  to 
1849 — that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  United  States 
to  annex  American  territory  lest  it  be  annexed 
by  European  countries.  The  third  doctrine, 
stated  by  Secretary  Blaine  in  1881,  holds  that 
the  United  States  is  sole  guardian  of  the  transit 
across  the  American  Isthmus,  and  the  arbiter  of 
disputes  between  Latin-American  powers.  The 
fourth  doctrine,  formulated  by  Secretary  Olney 
in  1895,  is  that  the  United  States  is  sovereign 
in  America,  that  the  British  colonies  in  America 
are  temporary,  and  that  these  declarations  are  a 
part  of  international  law. 

Plainly  all  these  various  principles  of  inter- 
national policy  cannot  be  one  and  the  same 
doctrine.  Without  criticising  later  American 
statesmen  for  looking  at  things  differently  from 
President  Monroe,  and  without  overlooking  the 
truth  that  this  nation  has  an  interest  in  Ameri- 
can affairs  beyond  that  of  any  other  power,  it  is 
time  to  inquire  what  policy  in  American  relation 
is  best  and  likeliest  to  advance  our  permanent 
national  interest;  and  to  ask  whether  it  is 
longer  necessary  to  express  the  aspirations  of 
the  United  States  in  a  worn-out  formula  which 
no  longer  has  a  fixed  and  vital  meaning  in  our 
minds.     Surely  it  is  one  of  the  humors  of  his- 


Variotts  Forms  213 

tory  that  an  envoy  whose  diplomacy  was  dis- 
credited by  both  Washington  and  Jefferson,  a 
President  who  did  not  invent  his  own  doctrine, 
should  go  down  to  posterity  as  a  political  seer 
who  could  frame  a  controlling  principle  of  guid- 
ance in  international  affairs,  still  to  have  un- 
abated force  eighty  years  after  the  crisis  which 
called  it  forth. 

Not  much   space  need   be  expended  on  an  69.  Origin  of 
account  of  the  origin  of  the  Monroe  doctrine,  ^witon^e*** 
All  the  world  knows  that  in  1823  there  existed  1823. 
in  Central  and  South  America  a  group  of  about 
a  dozen  Latin- American  states,  recently  revolted,   Latin-Amen- 
practically  independent  inasmuch  as  the  mother  '^^  states, 
country  could  not  subdue  them,  some  of  them 
already   recognized   by   the   United   States   as 
independent   nations,   yet   obstinately   claimed 
by  Spain  as  still  her  possessions.^ 

Upon  the  other  side  of  the  water  there  was 
between  the  great  European  powers  an  under- 
standing, commonly  called  the  Holy  Alliance, 
the  purpose  of  which  was  to  keep  the  peace  of 
Europe.  In  1823  Spain  was  restored  to  its  Proposed 
tyrant  by  a  French  army  acting  for  united  ion'^823. 
Europe,  and  the  tyrant  naturally  appealed  to 
his  sponsors  to  extinguish  the  flame  of  rebel- 
lion across  the  ocean.  The  project  meant  the 
closing  of  the  recently  opened  Latin-American 
markets  to  the  general  commerce  of  the  world ; 

^  See  §  8. 


214  Monroe  Doctrine 

and  Great  Britain,  who  had  both  commercial 
and  political  reasons  for  standing  in  the  way, 
gave  warning  to  the  United  States,  and  even 
offered  to  join  in  a  declaration  against  European 
intervention  in  America.  At  the  same  time, 
though  from  independent  reasons,  Russia  made 
claim  to  the  whole  northwestern  coast  of  Amer- 
ica, as  a  country  never  occupied  by  a  civilized 
nation,  and  thus  set  herself  counter  to  the  broad- 
minded  project  of  a  Pacific  colony,  which  had 
for  twenty  years  been  dear  to  Jefferson. 

No  one  who  knows  the  cautious  and  some- 
what sluggish  mind  of  Monroe  could  suppose 
a  priori  that  he  had  the  genius  to  meet  and 
counteract  the  double  danger;  the  real  author 
and  probable  penman  of  the  famous  declaration 
John  Quincy  of  1 823  was  John  Quincy  Adams,  then  Secre- 
Adams's  ^^^^  q£  State.  He  had  already  rapped  the 
knuckles  of  the  Russian  ambassador  on  the 
Oregon  question,  and  he  threw  all  his  immense 
energy  into  the  task  of  nerving  up  the  Presi- 
dent to  a  strong  announcement.  The  result  was 
the  annual  message  of  December  2,  1823,  em- 
bodying what  was  thereafter  called  "  The  Monroe 
Doctrine,"  the  essentials  of  which  are  three 
statements.  The  first,  which  immediately  fol- 
lows a  discussion  of  the  Russian  claims  to 
Oregon,  and  is  quite  separate  in  the  context 
from  the  part  of  the  message  relative  to  Latin- 
America,  is  the  statement  that  "  The  American 


John  Quincy  Adams       215 

continents,  by  the  free  and  independent  condi- 
tion which  they  have  assumed,  are  henceforth 
not  to  be  considered  as  subjects  for  future  colo- 
nization by  any  European  power."  The  second 
point  is  that  of  intervention  in  the  new  Spanish- 
American  states ;  the  most  significant  phrase  is, 
"  We  could  not  view  any  interposition  for  the 
purpose  of  oppressing  them  or  controlling  in 
any  other  manner  their  destiny,  by  any  Euro- 
pean power,  in  any  other  way  than  as  the  mani- 
festation of  an  unfriendly  disposition  toward  the 
United  States."  The  third  point  relates  to  the 
system  of  European  alliance,  to  prevent  revolts : 
"  It  is  impossible  that  the  allied  powers  should 
extend  their  political  system  to  any  portion  of 
either  continent  without  endangering  our  peace 
and  happiness." 

These  three  positive  declarations  are  in  every 
case  offset,  or  conditioned,  by  negative   state- 
ments.    In   the   first   place,   Monroe  expressly  Monroe  on 
disavowed  hostility  to  the  possessions  of  foreign  foreign 
powers  in  Canada,  Alaska,  and  the  West  Indies,  America, 
in  the  words,  "With  the  existing  colonies  or 
dependencies  of  any  European  power  we  have 
not  interfered,  and  shall  not  interfere."     In  the 
second  place,  he  disavowed  any  hegemony  of 
the  United  States  among  the  American  powers: 
"  In  their  career  we  have  not  interfered,  believ- 
ing that  every  people  have  a  right  to  institute 
for  themselves  the  government  which  in  their 


2l6 


Monroe  Doctrine 


Monroe  on 
American 
Power  in 
Europe. 


Grounds  of 

Monroe's 

Doctrine. 


judgment  may  suit  them  best."  In  the  third 
place,  he  expressly  based  his  right  to  protest 
against  European  intervention  on  our  with- 
drawal from  European  interests :  "  Our  policy 
in  regard  to  Europe,  which  was  adopted  at  an 
early  stage  in  the  wars  which  have  so  long  agi- 
tated that  quarter  of  the  globe,  nevertheless 
remains  the  same,  which  is,  not  to  interfere  in 
the  internal  concerns  of  any  of  its  powers." 
And  elsewhere,  "  It  is  only  when  our  rights  are 
invaded  or  seriously  menaced  that  we  resent  in- 
juries or  make  serious  preparations  for  defence." 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  Monroe  doctrine  was 
not  intended  by  Monroe  to  be  a  code  of  interna- 
tional law,  but  was  called  out  by  a  special  set  of 
circumstances  long  since  outgrown  —  aggres- 
sions by  Russia  and  by  allied  Europe.  So  far 
as  it  referred  to  the  future,  the  doctrine  was 
intended  to  state  a  kind  of  quid  pro  quo ;  this 
is  sufficiently  plain  from  Jefferson's  oft-quoted 
letter  of  advice  to  Monroe  :  "  Our  first  and  fun- 
damental maxim  should  be,  never  to  entangle 
ourselves  in  the  broils  of  Europe.  Our  sec- 
ond, never  to  suffer  Europe  to  meddle  with  cis- 
atlantic affairs." 

In  other  words,  Monroe  asserted  that  we 
would  intervene  in  America,  even  though  there 
were  no  distinct  aggression  upon  us,  while  in 
Europe  we  would  intervene  only  when  our 
interests  plainly  demanded  it.     A  case  in  point 


Quid  pro  Quo  217 

happened  in  the  same  year,  1823.  The  Greeks  Greece, 
revolted  and  asked  diplomatic  recognition.  ^^*^" 
Adams  replied :  "  While  cheering  with  their 
best  wishes  the  cause  of  the  Greeks,  the  United 
States  are  forbidden  by  the  duties  of  their  situa- 
tion from  taking  part  in  the  war,  to  which  their 
relation  is  that  of  neutrality.  At  peace  them- 
selves with  all  the  world,  their  established 
policy  and  the  obligations  of  the  laws  of  nations 
preclude  them  from  becoming  revolutionary 
auxiliaries  to  a  cause  which  could  involve  them 
in  war." 

Even  the  guarded  language  of  Monroe's  mes- 
sage was  held  not  to  mean  a  pledge  to  the  Latin- 
American  powers  to  protect  them  by  armed 
force.  It  still  remained  the  policy  of  the  nation 
to  decide  questions  for  herself  when  they  came, 
without  any  preliminary  promise  to  be  bound  by 
the  action  of  other  American  states.  In  1825 
the  United  States  was  invited  to  attend  a  con-  Panama 
gress  at  Panama,  the  object  of  which  was  to  fg°"f^8^ 
devise  means  for  making  effective  the  threat  in 
the  Monroe  Doctrine.  Adams,  however, — then 
President,  —  Umited  the  action  of  the  American 
delegates  to  "an  agreement  between  all  the 
parties  represented  at  the  meeting,  that  each 
will  guard,  by  its  own  means,  against  the  estab- 
lishment of  any  European  colony  within  its  bor- 
ders." This  disclaimer  of  joint  responsibility  was 
too  decided  for  the  House  of  Representatives, 


2l8 


Monroe  Doctrine 


70.  Glosses 
on  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine, 
1823-1895. 


Polk's  Doc- 
trine, 1845. 


Oregon  in 
1846. 


which  passed  a  resolution  setting  forth  "  that  the 
people  of  the  United  States  should  be  left  free 
to  act,  in  any  crisis,  in  such  a  manner  as  their 
own  honor  and  feeling  may  at  the  time  dictate." 

Much  trouble  and  confusion  might  have  been 
saved  had  Monroe  and  Adams  taken  out  a  copy- 
right upon  the  term  "  Monroe  doctrine,"  and  so 
distinctly  confined  the  term  to  the  state  policy 
that  they  had  in  mind.  When  Polk  became 
President  in  1845  the  Oregon  question  had 
revived  in  a  new  form,  and  in  his  first  annual 
message  he  deemed  it  "a  proper'  occasion  to 
reiterate  and  reaffirm  the  principle  avowed  by 
Mr.  Monroe";  but  he  added  a  statement,  no- 
where implied  in  the  original  doctrine :  "  It 
should  be  distinctly  announced  to  the  world  as 
our  settled  policy  that  no  future  European 
colony  or  dominion  should,  with  our  consent, 
be  planted  or  established  on  any  part  of  the 
North  American  continent."  Yet  even  Polk 
based  the  right  to  oppose  European  colonies, 
even  though  planted  with  approval  of  other 
American  powers,  upon  the  non-interference 
of  America  in  Europe. 

Notwithstanding  this  bold  announcement,  the 
President,  a  few  months  later,  gave  up  his  prin- 
ciple of  colonization  by  accepting  a  part  of 
Oregon- Territory,  and  showed  his  friendship  to 
Latin-America  by  making  war  on  Mexico.^     In 

1  See  §  17. 


Polk's  Doctrine  219 

1848  Polk  wanted  to  annex  Yucatan,  and  he  Folk's  Doc- 
found  his  authority  in  the  other  and  long-neg-  ^°*'°^^^- 
lected  branch  of  the  Monroe  doctrine :  annex- 
ation, he  said,  would  prevent  the  Yucatanese 
from  offering  themselves  as  a  colony  to  some 
European  power,  and  thus  introducing  the 
"  poHtical  system  "  of  Europe.  Whether  or  not 
this  reasoning  was  sound,  it  certainly  was  not 
Monroe's. 

About  the  same  time,  Ame'rican  foreign  policy 
was  brought  to  a  point  on  the  question  of  an 
isthmus  canal.  Polk  was  not  an  anti-expan- 
sionist; in /act,  his  foreign  policy  might  justify 
him  in  appropriating  the  Dey  of  Algiers's  com- 
pliment to  the  Duke  of  Kent :  "  Your  father, 
the  king  of  England,  is  the  greatest  pirate  in 
the  world ;  and  I  am  second  to  him."  There  is, 
therefore,  something  droll  in  the  charge  of  a 
recent  writer  that  "  Polk  lost  his  signal  oppor- 
tunity for  asserting  the  Monroe  doctrine  in  the 
face  of  actual  British  aggression  on  the  Isth- 
mus." Possibly  Polk  thought  he  had  already 
stretched  the  doctrine  as  far  as  it  would  go. 

The  next  opportunity  for  the  application  of 
the  Monroe  doctrine  was  the  French  conquest 
of  Mexico,  from  1861  to  1867.     Nobody  can  ac-  Seward's 
cuse  Secretary  Seward  of  lack  of  national  feel-  Doctnneas 

■'  to  Mexico, 

ing  or  diplomatic  finesse  or  quickness  in  seizing  1861-1867. 
on  precedents ;  and  his  most  recent  biographer 
with  justice  considers  his  Mexican  policy  "  his 


220 


Monroe  Doctrine 


House 
against  Do- 
minion of 
Canada, 
1867. 


Grant  against 
European 
Colonies, 
1870. 


most  perfect  achievement  in  diplomacy."  Here 
was  a  case  of  a  foreign  government  deliberately 
overthrowing  a  neighboring  republic  and  plant- 
ing a  monarchy  upon  its  ruins ;  one  would  ex- 
pect to  find  Seward's  despatches  punctuated 
with  "  colonization,"  "  political  system,"  and  "  in- 
terposition." It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  he 
nowhere  used  the  words  "  Monroe  doctrine," 
or  referred  to  precedents.  He  declared  at  the 
beginning  that  it  was  the  policy  of  the  United 
States  "  to  leave  the  destinies  of  Mexico  in  the 
keeping  of  her  own  people  "  ;  and  although  he 
advanced  in  1867  to  the  point  of  a  decided  threat 
of  war  unless  the  French  withdrew,  he  based  his 
whole  policy  upon  the  general  doctrine  of  the 
right  of  American  peoples  to  form  their  own 
governments,  and  upon  the  hostility  to  the  United 
States  shown  by  France  in  attempting  to  estab- 
lish a  despotic  foreign  government  upon  our  bor- 
ders. Seward  felt  strong  enough  to  form  a 
policy  of  his  own  without  adopting  the  orphaned 
Monroe  doctrine. 

Nevertheless,  in  the  public  press  and  in  Con- 
gress the  words  had  been  heard  often  enough, 
and  a  hostility  to  English  possessions  began  to 
appear,  expressed  in  the  protest  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  in  1 867  against  the  formation  of 
a  Canadian  federation.  President  Grant  asserted 
in  1870  that  "the  time  is  not  so  far  distant 
when,  in  the  natural  course  of  events,  the  Euro- 


Extensions  221 

pean  political  connection  with  this  continent 
will  cease."  The  controversy  with  England 
came  to  a  head  upon  the  proposed  European 
guarantee  of  neutrality  for  the  French  Panama 
Canal.  Mr.  Blaine,  in  1881,  laid  down  in  a  Blaine  on  Ai- 
general  circular  a  new  doctrine  of  his  own,  ''a°ce,  issi. 
declaring  "  that  European  aggression  would  par- 
take of  the  nature  of  an  aUiance  against  the 
United  States."  But  he  too,  like  Polk  and  like 
Seward,  thought  the  paramount  interest  of  the 
United  States  a  sufficient  ground  for  objection ; 
and  he  did  not  shield  himself  under  Monroe's 
authority.  He  had,  moreover,  a  broad  scheme 
of  establishing  a  benevolent  leadership  among 
the  American  states  with  their  own  consent,  a 
project  partially  realized  in  the  inter-American 
conference  of  1889. 

The  farthest  extension  of  policy  to  which  the 
name  "  Monroe  doctrine "  has  ever  been  seri- 
ously applied  appears  in  the  explosive  despatches 
of  Secretary  Olney  in  1895,  and  President  Cleve-  oineys  Doc- 
land's  special  message  of  December  17,  1895,  '""^-^^s- 
invoking  the  Monroe  doctrine  to  prevent  the 
occupation  of  territory  disputed  between  a  Brit- 
ish colony  and  a  Latin-American  state  ;  again, 
however,  this  position  was  expressly  based 
upon  "  American  non-interference  in  European 
affairs."  ^ 

No  previous  President  or  Secretary  of  State 
iSee$  II. 


222  Monroe  Doctrine 

had  ever  taken  the  broad  and  sweeping  ground 
now  assumed  by  Secretary  Ohiey ;  he  declared 
that  "any  permanent  political  union  between 
a  European  and  an  American  state  was  un- 
natural and  inexpedient " ;  that  the  interests 
"  of  Europe  are  irreconcilably  diverse  from 
those  of  America " ;  that  "  to-day  the  United 
States  is  practically  sovereign  on  this  continent 
and  its  fiat  is  law  upon  the  subjects  to  which  it 
confines  its  interposition  "  ;  that  it  is  "  master  of 
the  situation."  These  weighty  declarations  were 
further  asserted  to  be  at  once  a  reassertion  of 
Monroe's  doctrine,  and  a  permanent  principle 
of  international  law  for  American  relations. 
Whether  sound  or  otherwise,  they  have  so  little 
relation  to  the  doctrine  of  1823  that  one  is 
tempted  to  apply  to  Secretary  Olney's  argument 
the  Oxford  undergraduate's  account  of  a  foot- 
ball game :  "It  would  have  been  just  as  good  a 
fight  without  the  ball ;  the  ball  was  only  in  the 
way."  It  is  difficult  to  resist  the  conviction  that 
Olney's  doctrine  would  have  had  more  force  if 
it  had  stood  boldly  on  a  principle  of  permanent 
national  interest.  Monroe  added  no  strength  to 
his  position. 
71.  Changes  Jefferson  had  a  theory  that  no  people  has  a 
c  diti*"*^*"  \^Z2\  right  to  incur  a  national  debt  to  be  paid  by 
1823-1900.'  the  next  generation ;  perhaps  it  might  be  fair  to 
ask  that  no  generation  shall  lay  down  a  princi- 
ple of  international  policy  which  later  genera- 


American  Conditions       223 

tions  must  be  compelled  to  twist  to  every  new 
exigency.  The  various  glosses  on  the  original 
message  show^earTy  the  difficulty  of  adjusting 
the  original  Monroe  doctrine  to  the  conditions 
of  to-day ;  indeed,  the  whole  face  of  America  has 
so  changed  in  seventy-seven  years  that  new 
principles  are  absolutely  necessary.  In  the  first 
place,  since  1823  Spain  has  been  eliminated  as  Spain. 
a  factor  in  American  affairs,  by  the  long-main- 
tained independence  of  the  Spanish-American 
states,  and  very  recently  by  the  conquest  of 
Cuba  and  Porto  Rico.  At  the  same  time,  France  France. 
—  in  1823  and  again  in  1861  a  source  of  real 
danger  —  has  ceased  to  be  effective  in  American 
relations  ;  hence  there  can  never  be  any  shadow 
of  intervention  for  the  sake  of  restoring  Latin 
dominion.  On  the  other  hand,  Monroe's  hope- 
fulness that  the  Latin-American  powers  would  LaHn- 
show  those  qualities  of  steadfastness,  order,  and  ^'"^"'^ 
peaceful  obedience  to  the  law  of  the  majority 
which  characterize  real  republican  government 
has  been  unhappily  dispelled  :  there  is  not  a  sin- 
gle Latin-American  power,  except  Mexico,  which 
has  succeeded  in  keeping  internal  peace,  or 
which  could  defend  its  own  soil  against  a  foreign 
army.  At  the  same  time,  the  fear  that  republi- 
can government  might  be  extinguished  in  the 
United  States  by  what  Clay  called  "  the  giddi- 
ness and  intoxication  of  power"  of  European 
monarchy,  has  forever  been  dispelled. 


224  Monroe  Doctrine 

The  territorial  relations  of  Great  Britain  and 
British  the  United  States  have  also  undergone  a  great 

Colonies.  change :  while  the  British  West  Indies  have  di- 
minished in  importance,  and  the  little  colonies  of 
Guiana,  Honduras,  and  Belize  are  still  feeble 
and  thinly  populated,  Canada  has  stretched 
across  the  continent  step  by  step  along  with  the 
United  States,  and  is  now  more  strongly  attached 
to  England  by  sentiment  and  commercial  ties 
than  at  any  time  for  half  a  century.  The  spread 
of  the  power  of  the  United  States  from  the  At- 
lantic to  the  Pacific  involves  the  country  in  new 
PacificCoast  relations  with  the  Western  states  of  South  and 
Central  America,  and  lends  a  powerful  impetus 
to  the  movement  for  an  interoceanic  canal,  now 
the  great  storm  centre  in  American  affairs.  If 
there  is  need  for  any  set  doctrine,  the  Monroe 
doctrine  is  too  weak  for  the  circumstances  of 
this  day,  when  the  United  States  has  become 
the  greatest  Caribbean  power,  the  power  most 
concerned  in  a  highway  across  the  narrow  lands 
from  ocean  to  ocean,  and  the  power  which  has 
contact  with  British  territory  along  a  land 
frontier  of  four  thousand  miles. 

A  glance  at  a  map  or  the  turning  of  a  page  of 
statistics  will  show  that  the  only  foreign  nation 
which  has  a  vital  interest  or  influence  within  the 
Foreign  Americas  is  Great  Britain.     There  are  Germans 

in  Brazil,  Italians  in  the  Argentine,  French  cap- 
ital on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  Spanish-speak- 


European  Conditions       225 

ing  people  in  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico ;  but  Ger- 
many, Italy,  France,  and  Spain  are  not  factors 
in  American  questions,  and  can  never  become 
such.  Since  the  withdrawal  of  the  French  from 
Mexico  in  1867,  all  the  extreme  forms  of  the  so- 
called  Monroe  doctrine  are  therefore  in  essence 
assertions  that  to  the  United  States  belongs  a 
place  in  American  affairs  which  will  not  brook 
any  sharing  of  responsibilities  or  power  with 
Great  Britain. 

The  changes  in  American  conditions  are  73.  Changes 
hardly  greater  than  those  in  our  relations  with  Relations*" 
Europe.  When  Secretary  Olney  reiterated  that 
the  United  States  had  no  share  in  European 
complications,  he  did  not  expect  that  four  years 
later  the  United  States  would  arouse  the  jeal- 
ousy of  Europe  by  insisting  that  Turkey  pay  a 
bill  for  damages  at  the  point  of  a  despatch  ;  or 
that  the  United  States  would  lay  down  a  Chi- 
nese policy  for  Europe  to  follow.  In  two  senses 
the  "  political  system  "  which  aroused  Monroe's  Political 
suspicions  has  disappeared  —  Western  Europe  ^y*'^™- 
is  democratic,  and  a  combination  of  real  or  un- 
real sovereigns  to  prevent  the  spread  of  liberal 
thought  has  ceased  to  be  possible.  In  1823 
every  country  in  Europe  except  Switzerland  was 
monarchic  ;  hence  there  was  an  antagonism  and 
a  contrast  between  the  American  repubUc  and 
Europe  which  all  the  world  observed.  To-day, 
however,  Switzerland  is  broadly  and  genuinely 
Q 


Relations. 


226  Monroe  Doctrine 

a  republic,  under  a  government  closely  modelled 
on  that  of  the  United  States ;  France  is  a  repub- 
lic; the  Scandinavian  countries,  Belgium,  Hol- 
land, Austro-Hungary,  Italy,  and  Germany,  are 
to  a  large  extent  democratic ;  England,  under  the 
forms  of  monarchy,  has  a  government  the  most 
closely  responsive  to  public  opinion  known  to 
mankind.  Europe  and  the  European  political 
system  are  no  longer  bugbears ;  and  we  now 
study  foreign  political  systems  in  the  expectation 
of  finding  something  that  will  be  useful  to  us. 
Commercial  Commercial  relations  with  Europe  are  also 
much  more  intimate  and  important  than  they 
were  in  1823;  a  single  ocean  steamship  in  a 
year  will  carry  a  fifteenth  as  much  as  the  whole 
foreign  commerce  of  the  United  States  in  1823. 
Within  the  borders  of  the  United  States  live 
eight  million  persons  born  in  European  coun- 
tries; a  hundred  thousand  Americans  annually 
visit  the  Eastern  hemisphere.  Missionaries 
and  commercial  travellers,  the  two  advance 
agents  of  civilization,  are  found  in  every  Euro- 
pean country,  and  American  oil,  food  products, 
and  manufactures  spread  throughout  the  world. 
When  the  American  tariff  draws  its  cabalistic 
circle  of  exclusion,  the  tin-m.iner  of  Cornwall,  the 
button-maker  of  Vienna,  the  potter  of  Limoges, 
and  the  weaver  of  Saxony  become  aware  of  the 
weight  of  our  government.  Let  any  one  ex- 
amine the  useful  government  publication  known 


Aloofness  ^27 

as  Foreign  Relatiotis  during  the  last  twenty 
years,  and  one  will  be  amazed  at  the  amount 
and  multifariousness  of  present  American  inter- 
ests in  European  countries. 

To  maintain  the  aloofness  which  was  the  con-  Aloofness 
dition  of  the  original  Monroe  doctrine  has  be-  •'"P°"*^'^ 
come,  therefore,  simply  impossible.  When  the 
German  agrarians  and  socialists  get  into  a 
scrimmage  in  the  Reichstag  we  are  interested, 
for  the  question  is  the  exclusion  of  our  food  ex- 
ports ;  when  the  British  Parliament  discusses  a 
bill  for  creating  an  Australian  federation,  we  are 
interested,  for  it  means  a  tariff  in  New  South 
Wales;  when  kind  Li  Hung  Chang  exhibits 
his  certificates  of  good  character,  while  Chinese 
irregular  troops  are  burning  Protestant  churches, 
we  are  interested,  because  those  churches  were 
built  by  American  contributions.  France  can- 
not even  hold  a  world's  fair  without  a  reasona- 
ble assurance  that  the  Americans  will  be  present 
with  some  of  the  products  of  the  Leadville 
mines  in  their  pockets. 

After  all,  these  commercial  and  personal 
matters  are  not  the  influences  which  most  power- 
fully and  inevitably  draw  the  United  States 
into  European  relations.  The  process  of  aggre- 
gation which  is  so  visible  in  corporations,  com-  Govemmen- 
panies,  and  trusts  is  equally  visible  in  the  ^^fj'^**'" 
political  world.  In  1802  there  were  about  one 
hundred  German   states;    now   there   are    but 


228  Monroe  Doctrine 

twenty-seven,  and  these  are  united  in  one  fed- 
eration. Who  does  not  see  that  within  the  last 
thirty  years  the  number  of  possible  world  powers 
has  been  steadily  drawing  down  ?  In  all  Eu- 
rope and  Asia  there  are  now  but  four  nations 
which  will  indubitably  be  great  powers  a  cen- 
tury hence  —  Russia,  Germany,  Great  Britain, 
and  China.  In  the  Pacific,  Japan  is  the  only 
permanent  world  power ;  in  the  Western  world 
there  is  but  one  great  nation,  the  United  States. 
These  six  powers  must  inevitably  control  the 
destinies  of  mankind ;  the  history  of  the  future 
is  the  history  of  the  relations,  friendly  or  other- 
wise, between  them ;  the  diplomacy  of  the 
future  is  the  grouping  and  regrouping  of  these 
six  units  with  or  against  each  other.  When 
the  ruling  powers  are  so  few,  how  can  it  be  sup- 
posed that  the  United  States  will  be  willing  to 
stand  aloof  from  the  European  controversies 
which  involve  the  destinies  of  the  world,  or  that 
it  could  stand  aloof  if  it  so  desired }  For  good 
or  evil,  the  United  States  has  taken  upon  itself 
a  share  in  the  world's  affairs  and  cannot  abdi- 
cate its  responsibilities.  There  is  no  such  thing 
for  us  as  quiet  home-dwelling  under  our  vine 
and  fig  tree ;  there  is  for  us  no  Chinese  wall 
against  trade  or  intercourse  or  political  influ- 
ences. 
73.  Changes  What  is  true  of  Europe  is  even  more  true  of 
Aff^'s*^"      the  East.     The  United  States  has  a  chain  of 


The  East  229 

possessions  from  the  Pacific  coast  to  the  Asiatic 
through  Hawaii,  Samoa,  Guam,  and  the  Philip- 
pines, It  thus  becomes  neighbor  to  Japan,  to 
China,  to  French,  English,  and  Dutch  Asiatic  Eastern 
colonies,  to  New  Zealand,  to  the  flourishing  new  Neighbors. 
commonwealth  of  Australia;  and  this  propin- 
quity involves  questions  of  trade,  of  outlet  for 
our  manufactures,  of  travel,  of  sojourn,  of  colo- 
nial administration.  All  these  questions  ulti- 
mately lead  back  to  Europe,  because  the  Asiatic 
questions  of  the  future,  except  for  the  influence 
of  Japan,  must  be  settled  in  the  council  rooms 
of  the  Western  world  ;  and  the  future  of  China, 
the  fate  of  Persia,  the  status  of  the  Pacific 
islands,  are  questions  which  are  incapable  of 
permanent  solution  unless  the  United  States  is  a 
party  to  that  solution.  Indeed,  Wu  Ting  Fang, 
Chinese  minister,  has  recently  quizzically  sug- 
gested that,  "The  Monroe  doctrine  being  the 
fixed  policy  of  your  government,  the  natural 
logic  is  that  it  should  be  applied  to  that  part  of 
the  world  where  this  country  has  possessions." 

There  are  people  who  suppose  that  it  was 
possible  to  avoid  all  these  responsibilities 
by  abstaining  from  the  recent  conquests  in  the  National 
West  Indies  or  East  Indies;  but,  without  a  ^nte^^o"- 
Spanish  War,  had  there  never  been  a  Cuba,  were 
the  Hawaiian  Islands  to  have  sunk  beneath  the 
ocean,  the  eventual  participation  of  America  in 
the  world's  affairs  was  as  inevitable  as  the  flow 


230 


Monroe  Doctrine 


74.  Future 
Limits  of 
the  Monroe 
Doctrine. 


Defects  in 
Latin- 
America. 


of  lava  down  the  slope  of  a  volcano.  There  has 
never  been  known  to  man  an  aggregation  of 
political  and  social  strength  comparable  with 
the  United  States,  which  did  not  make  itself 
a  factor  in  the  world's  history.  Our  diplomacy 
has  sometimes  been  crude,  uninformed,  and  dis- 
regardful  of  its  own  precedents ;  but  it  has  ex- 
pressed a  national  intention  to  speak  in  the 
councils  of  nations.  The  assurance  of  the  phys- 
ical power  of  the  nation,  its  ability  to  make 
itself  felt,  the  clearness  to  see  national  interests 
in  an  exaggerated  form,  have  not  arisen  out  of 
the  Spanish  War ;  they  come  from  the  natural 
eagerness  of  an  energetic  people,  which  has  per- 
haps too  much  confidence  in  its  own  good  judg- 
ment, and  is  quicker  to  see  disorder  in  other 
lands  than  at  home ;  but  which  feels  itself  what 
it  really  is  —  a  living  force  in  the  affairs  of  man- 
kind. 

If  American  diplomats  have  henceforth  to 
formulate  and  defend  the  American  policy  of 
their  country,  they  must  do  so  within  the  con- 
ditions which  have  been  described  above.  In 
the  first  place,  they  cannot  fail  to  recognize,  as 
they  have  long  recognized,  the  defects  in  Latin- 
American  government :  Cuba  was  no  worse  mis- 
governed by  Spain  than  Venezuela  is  by  its  own 
people.  The  history  of  our  relations  with  our 
neighbor  republics  is  one  of  constant  irritation 
on  one  side,  and,  in  general,  of  great  forbear- 


in  Latin- 
America. 


Limits  231 

ance  on  the  other:  without  power  to  maintain 
order  or  to  protect  their  own  citizens,  the  Latin- 
American  governments  have  been  unable,  and 
sometimes  unwilling,  to  prevent  the  seizure  of 
the  property  of  foreigners,  or  to  avoid  acts  of 
personal  violence.  The  phrase  which  most  fre- 
quently occurs  in  the  diplomatic  correspondence 
with  America  is  not  "  Monroe  doctrine,"  but 
"unpaid  claims." 

If  we  expect  to  exert  influence  over  these 
countries,  we  must  also  take  into  account  their 
prejudices  and  their  pride.  Peru  was  very  glad  Prejudices 
to  have  the  United  States  remonstrate  against 
its  implacable  Chilean  conquerors  in  1881 ;  Ven- 
ezuela joyfully  accepted  the  intervention  of  the 
United  States  in  the  boundary  controversy  of 
1895 :  but  Peruvians  and  Venezuelans  would 
probably  join  in  resistance  to  any  attempt  on 
our  part  to  set  up  or  support  a  government  for 
them,  however  better  than  their  own.  Mexico 
is  the  great  exception  to  this  principle,  because 
in  Mexico  American  capitalists  practically  dic- 
tate the  protection  of  their  own  property.  But 
if  the  United  States  should  stand  forth  as  the 
protector  of  individual  Latin-American  states 
against  each  other,  or  in  their  frequent  and 
unavoidable  quarrels  with  European  powers, 
it  would  assume  also  a  responsibility  which 
our  American  neighbors  would  infallibly  resent 
whenever  exercised  against  their  preferences. 


232 


Monroe  Doctrine 


British 
Colonies. 


Interest  in 
Euroi>e  and 
Asia. 


In  the  next  place,  the  existence  of  small 
French  and  Dutch  island  colonies  in  the  Carib- 
bean, and  of  larger  and  more  important  British 
islands  and  continental  areas,  must  be  accepted 
as  a  fact ;  and  there  seems  no  likelihood  of  the 
extinction  of  the  French  or  English  title  by  any 
process  short  of  a  successful  war  of  conquest.^ 

A  permanent  and  growing  interest  in  what 
have  hitherto  seemed  strictly  European  ques- 
tions must  also  be  taken  into  account  by  our 
statesmen.  It  seems  probable  that  a  second 
Cretan  insurrection  or  Armenian  massacre  or 
subjugation  of  Hungary  would  lead  to  protests 
more  vigorous  than  the  United  States  has  ever 
yet  uttered  on  European  affairs ;  and  the  trans- 
atlantic war  of  tariffs  must  sometime  have  an 
end  either  by  lowering  the  bars  at  both  ends, 
or  by  hostile  and  irritating  retaliatory  legisla- 
tion. In  the  Pacific  and  in  Eastern  Asia  the 
nation  appears  to  have  a  footing  which  it  is  not 
disposed  to  give  up.  Plainly  it  is  idle  to  base 
the  foreign  policy  of  the  United  States  longer 
on  the  principle  that  we  stand  entirely  separate 
from  the  quarrels  or  the  diplomatic  arrange- 
ments of  the  Eastern  hemisphere. 

The  extension  of  the  term  "  Monroe  doctrine  " 
from  the  limited  form  given  it  by  John  Quincy 
Two  Spheres,  ^jj^ms  to  that  Stated  by  Secretary  Olney  has 
of  course  a  reason  :  there  is  an  apparent  advan- 

»See§  II. 


Doctrine  of 


Two  Spheres  233 

tage,  when  the  United  States  takes  up  a  position 
in  American  diplomacy,  in  bringing  it  within 
the  Monroe  doctrine ;  because  it  may  then  be 
urged  that  foreign  powers  which  ignore  or 
question  our  positions  have  had  many  decades 
of  notice,  and  hence  are  sinning  against  light. 
But  it  is  impossible  to  appeal  to  a  part  of  the 
principle  and  to  ignore  the  rest ;  and  the  history 
of  the  doctrine  shows  absolutely  that,  down  to 
1895,  the  United  States  always  asserted  a  special 
American  influence,  on  the  ground  that  it  left  to 
European  powers  a  similar  special  interest  in 
Europe.  This  is  simply  a  doctrine  of  the  per- 
manent subdivision  of  the  earth  into  two  spheres 
of  influence,  each  of  which  could  get  on  with- 
out the  other,  and  in  each  of  which  the  inter- 
ference of  the  other  would  be  unwarranted. 
There  was  really  no  such  separation  in  1823, 
and  every  year  draws  the  ends  of  the  earth 
closer  together.  To  claim  the  Monroe  doctrine 
as  still  our  guiding  principle  is  to  suggest  to 
other  nations  that  the  United  States  has  no 
power  outside  America.  The  two  areas  are  not 
separate  and  never  can  be  separated  ;  the  United 
States  is  a  world  power,  and  cannot  claim  the 
special  privileges  of  a  diplomatic  recluse,  and  at 
the  same  time  the  mastery  of  the  Western 
hemisphere. 

That  the  interests   of   European   powers  in  75-  The 
America  are  in  general  not  equal  to  those  of   th«Putor». 


234 


Monroe  Doctrine 


Propinquity 
of  Interest. 


\ 


\3 


the  United  States  is  as  true  as  that  the  United 
States  can  and  will  keep  out  of  most  European 
imbroglios.  It  was  not  by  accident  that  Seward 
in  1867  based  his  protest  against  the  final  con- 
quest of  Mexico  upon  a  broad  basis  of  per- 
manent national  interest :  that  has  really  been 
the  ground  for  each  of  the  Protean  forms  of 
statement  which  have  been  discussed  above. 
Adams,  Polk,  Fish,  Blaine,  Olney,  Hay,  all 
have  had  in  their  minds  the  conception  that 
international  relations  depend  as  much  upon 
geography  as  upon  international  law,  that  pro- 
pinquity creates  of  necessity  questions  which 
cannot  be  settled  off-hand  by  diplomatic  prec- 
edents. It  is  notorious  that  neighboring  coun- 
tries almost  always  have  permanent  grievances 
against  each  other:  if  Italy  were  across  the 
Channel  from  England,  the  two  powers  would 
constantly  be  in  hot  water;  if  Brazil  were  a 
German  colony,  there  would  be  friction  between 
the  United  States  and  Germany  all  the  time. 
All  that  was  valuable  in  Monroe's  message  was 
the  assertion  that  the  United  States  had  such  a 
commercial  and  political  interest  in  this  hemi- 
sphere that  it  would  not  permit  European  powers 
to  alter  the  American  status  by  force.  Had 
Spain  possessed  the  physical  power  to  conquer 
the  rebellious  colonies,  the  United  States  would 
not  have  felt  itself  bound  by  Monroe's  dis- 
claimer, and  eventually  would  have  compelled 


Changed  Conditions        235 

Spain  to  give  them  up.  If  the  United  States 
had  a  commerce  for  which  the  Suez  Canal  was 
indispensable,  it  would  naturally  take  a  great 
interest  in  the  control  of  that  canal ;  but  we  do 
not  need  Monroe's  permission  for  the  assertion 
of  such  an  interest. 

Most  people  who  talk  about  the  Monroe  doc- 
trine mean  nothing  more  than  that  there  should 
be  no  change  of  status  in  America  prejudicial  to  change  of 
the  United  States,  though  public  opinion  varies  ^^^^^ 
from  year  to  year  as  to  what  is  prejudicial.  In 
the  fifties  Buchanan,  Mason,  and  Soul^  were 
sure  that  emancipation  of  slaves  in  Cuba  was 
prejudicial  and  must  be  prevented;  in  1867  the 
majority  of  the  Representatives  thought  the 
formation  of  a  Canadian  confederacy  preju- 
dicial. In  1850  the  neutrahty  of  the  Isthmus 
canal  was  thought  so  important  that  we  went 
into  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty;  in  1881  Mr. 
Blaine  ignored  the  treaty;  in  1900  Mr.  Hay 
recognized  its  validity  by  negotiating  for  its 
abrogation. 

Is  it  not  possible  to  rise  above  temporary  and 
fleeting  issues  to  some  understanding  as  to  what 
the  "  permanent  interest "  of  the  United  States 
demands }  To  formulate  a  state  paper  express- 
ing such  a  principle  is  the  work  of  a  statesman  • 
and  not  of  an  essayist,  but  some  clear  and 
definite  bases  may  be  laid  down  for  any  per- 
manent policy  in  pan-American  affairs. 


236 


Monroe  Doctrine 


Natural 
Outlets. 


American 
Commerce. 


The  first  is  that  the  territory  of  the  United 
States  is  not  to  be  hemmed  in  and  cut  off  from 
its  natural  outlets  :  the  annexation  of  Louisiana, 
of  the  Floridas,  of  Oregon,  and  of  California, 
all  resulted  from  this  principle ;  at  present  it  is 
not  necessary  to  appeal  to  it,  because  our  terri- 
tory is  everywhere  accessible.  The  one  excep- 
tion is  the  highway  of  the  Great  Lakes,  which 
has  no  natural  route  to  the  sea ;  but  it  is  easier 
to  make  a  safe  commercial  connection  through 
the  Mohawk  Valley  than  through  the  lower  St. 
Lawrence,  and  we  do  not  need  Quebec  while  we 
have  New  York.  The  only  two  strategic  points 
which  seemed  threatening  a  few  years  ago  have 
now  come  into  our  possession  by  the  control  of 
Cuba  and  the  annexation  of  Hawaii.  We  are 
well  protected. 

The  next  principle  is  that  the  commerce  of 
the  United  States  with  its  American  neighbors 
must  not  be  shackled  by  any  restrictions  emanat- 
ing from  Europe.  We  reserve  the  right  to  cut 
off  our  own  trade,  and  the  failure  of  several  suc- 
cessive series  of  reciprocity  treaties  in  the  last 
twenty-five  years  seems  to  show  that  Congress 
does  not  wish  to  extend  our  commerce  in 
America  at  present;  but  we  do  insist  that  no 
obstacle  shall  grow  up  to  prevent  at  least  an 
equal  opportunity  in  the  commerce  of  the 
Latin-American  states. 

In  the  third  place,  we  must  accept  the  exist- 


British  Influence  237 

ence  of  a  large  territorial  part  of  the  British  British 
Empire  in  America,,  and  so  far  forth  must  admit  AmTrk^ '° 
that  Great  Britain  is  an  American  power  in  the 
same  sense  that  we  are  an  Asiatic  power.  The 
annexation  of  Canada,  which  has  been  predicted 
by  many  keen-sighted  men  for  a  century  and  a 
quarter,  now  seems  more  distant  than  ever, 
because  the  Canadians  are  satisfied,  and  Great 
Britain  desires  that  they  should  be  satisfied. 
Next-door  intimacy  with  Canada  has  always 
caused,  and  probably  will  continue  to  cause,  fric- 
tion and  some  heart-burning ;  the  Oregon  ques- 
tion, the  San  Juan  question,  the  Alaskan 
boundary  question,  navigation  of  the  St.  Law- 
rence, the  northeastern  fisheries,  the  Maine 
boundary,  transit  in  bond,  rivalries  of  transcon- 
tinental railroads,  tariff  warfare,  —  all  these  dis- 
agreeable disputes  might  have  been  avoided  if 
Montgomery  and  Arnold  had  taken  Quebec  in 
1775  ;  but  they  might  also  have  been  avoided  if 
Burgoyne  had  taken  Albany  three  years  later. 
In  the  balance  of  national  forces  it  came  out 
that  both  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain 
retained  great  areas  of  North  American  terri- 
tory. To  deny  the  right  of  Great  Britain  to 
hold  Canada  and  Jamaica  is  to  deny  the  original 
Monroe  doctrine,  which  distinctly  disclaims  any 
hostility  to  those  existing  colonies. 

In  the  fourth  place,  we  are  facing  the  prob-  Canal, 
lem  of  a  canal  from  ocean  to  ocean,  in  which  the 


238  Monroe  Doctrine 

country  most  advantaged  will  be  the  United 
States;  whatever  the  likelihood  that  the  trans- 
continental railroads  would  still  compete  against 
a  water  transportation  through  a  locked  canal, 
the  necessity  of  piercing  the  Isthmus  is  too  plain 
to  be  disregarded.  One  cannot  quarrel  with  the 
people  of  the  United  States  for  the  intention  of 
constructing  such  a  canal,  although  it  is  a  fair 
question  for  engineers,  statesmen,  and  financiers 
whether  the  cheapest  and  best  method  is  not  the 
completion  of  the  Panama  route.  But  the  canal 
is  not  simply  a  road  from  the  Atlantic  coast  of 
the  United  States  to  the  Pacific ;  it  is  an  inter- 
national benefit  which  the  United  States  has  no 
right  to  take  upon  itself,  except  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  civilized  commerce.  The  oceans 
are  the  property  of  mankind,  and  if  we  try  to 
shut  up  an  artificial  strait  between  them,  we  may 
some  day  find  the  Bosphorus  closed  to  us. 

The  next  principle  must  be  that  in  American 
affairs,  as  in  all  affairs,  the  United  States  shall 
Obligations.  Stand  by  its  obligations.  The  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty  was  ratified  because  it  was  a  fair  settle- 
ment of  a  very  dangerous  question ;  and  we  do 
not  realize  how  many  critical  questions  have 
been  kept  in  abeyance  by  that  treaty.  The 
British  government  unnecessarily  aroused  the 
hostility  of  America  by  the  insistence  on  terri- 
torial right  through  control  of  a  puppet  king  of 
the  Mosquito  Indians ;  but  all  other  interference 


Moderation  239 

in  the  construction  of  the  canal  has  been  warded 
ofiF ;  and  now  that  Great  Britain  gracefully  con- 
sents to  give  up  joint  guaranty,  it  leaves  a  clear 
field  for  American  ownership. 

The  next  principle  is  that,  if  the  United  States  No  more 
is  to  retain  its  influence,  it  must  refrain  from  Annexation 

'  m  America. 

further  annexation  of  Latin-American  territory. 
The  first  movement  toward  the  annexation  of 
any  part  of  Nicaragua  or  of  Central  America 
will  arouse  the  hostility  of  all  the  other  Ameri- 
can nations,  and  undo  all  the  work  of  commer- 
cial conciliation.  Neither  the  Monroe  doctrine 
nor  any  other  common-sense  doctrine  delivers 
our  neighbors  over  to  us  for  spoliation. 

These  are  general  principles  upon  which  the 
"  doctrine  of  permanent  interest  "  must  proceed, 
because  they  are  right,  just,  and  reasonable  prin- 
ciples, but  also  because  they  lie  in  the  nature  of 
our  international  conditions.     There  is  no  longer  No  Danger 
the  slightest  danger  of  any  European  interven-  Annexation 
tion  in  America ;    the  last  suggestion  of   such  in  America. 
a  thing  was  Grant's  proposed  joint  intervention 
in  Cuba    in    1875.      There   is    no   longer  any 
danger  of  establishing  new  European  colonies  in 
America;  the  Venezuelan  incident,  with  all  its 
unreason,  revealed   clearly  to   the  rest  of  the 
world  the  temper  of  the  United  States  on  that 
point.     There  is  no  longer  any  danger  of  the 
introduction  of  European  monarchies. 

Finally,  neither  the  Monroe  doctrine  nor  any 


240  Monroe  Doctrine 

form   of   American    doctrine    means    that  the 
United  States  is  to  do  whatever  may  seem  good 
to  it  in  America,  or  that  its  "  permanent  interest " 
involves  a  right  to  get  away  from  inconvenient 
Restrictions    restrictions  in  the  law  of  nations,  as  established 
natioiua         ^7  ^^  practice  of  civilized  peoples.     We  have 
Law.  too  much  at  stake  to  raise  unnecessary  difficulties 

at  home  or  abroad ;  we  have  to  deal  with  and 
consider  Latin-Americans,  British-Americans, 
and  American- Americans ;  we  have  to  safe- 
guard our  interests  in  Europe,  in  the  Pacific, 
and  in  Asia;  we  have  to  take  account  of  the 
influence  which  this  nation  seems  destined  to 
exert  on  mankind.  If  there  is  to  be  in  the 
coming  century  a  great  battle  of  Armageddon — 
once  more  Europe  against  the  Huns  —  we  can 
no  more  help  taking  our  part  with  the  hosts  of 
freedom  than  we  can  help  educating  our  children, 
building  our  churches,  or  maintaining  the  rights 
of  the  individual.  There  is  no  proper  and  perma- 
nent doctrine  of  foreign  policy  which  does  not 
recognize  the  United  States  as  the  great  leader 
in  all  American  affairs,  and  one  of  the  great 
leaders  in  the  affairs  of  mankind.  There  is  no 
safe  or  permanent  doctrine  which  does  not 
recognize  our  sisterhood  with  other  nations 
under  international  law.  The  "doctrine  of 
permanent  interest,"  therefore,  is  a  doctrine  of 
peace  in  America,  international  fellowship  in  the 
Eastern  hemishere,  and  civilization  everywhere. 


VIII 

A  BRIEF   BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  AMERI- 
CAN  DIPLOMACY 

The  sources  for  the  study  of  American  for-  7<S-  Pmci- 
eign  relations  are  very  abundant,  and  there  are  BiWioeni-' 
many   general   treatises   on  international    law;  phy- 
secondary  narratives  are  now  coming  forward 
in  considerable  numbers,  and  the  publication  of 
monographs  has  begun.     As  yet,  however,  no 
one  has  attempted  a  systematic  bibliography  of 
the  subject;  and  the  investigator  is  swamped  by 
the  very  wealth  of  his  materials. 

It  has  therefore  seemed  worth  while  to  clas- 
sify, enumerate,  and  describe  the  most  service- 
able books  and  collections  bearing  on  American 
diplomacy,  though  space  does  not  allow  any 
attempt  to  include  the  large  literature  of  peri- 
odical articles,  or  to  analyze  the  collections 
either  by  countries  or  chronologically.  This 
bibliography  is  therefore  simply  a  checklist  of 
the  more  accessible  books,  with  such  brief  com- 
ment as  may  show  their  value  and  their  bearing. 
In  most  cases,  works  which  are  out  of  print  or 
otherwise  unavailable,  however  valuable,  are  not 
included.  For  the  investigator  a  path  may  be 
>  241 


242  Bibliography 

found  deeper  into  the  literature  and  to  special 
topics,  through  the  bibliographical  aids  men- 
tioned below,  and  through  the  footnotes  to 
treatises  on  international  law  and  to  narratives, 
histories,  and  monographs. 

Works  of  especial  significance  and  usefulness 
are  noted  by  an  asterisk  (*). 

The  list  is  not  confined  to  the  diplomacy  of 
the  United  States  since  1775.  In  the  sense  of 
the  bibUography,  American  diplomacy  begins 
with  the  relations  of  the  colonizing  European 
countries  with  each  other  at  the  time  of  the  dis- 
covery ;  follows  out  the  rival  claims  to  territory 
in  the  New  World,  and  the  treaties  of  delimita- 
tion ;  deals  with  the  external  regulation  of 
colonial  commerce,  especially  commerce  with 
other  American  settlements;  discusses  interco- 
lonial correspondence  and  plans  of  union ; 
describes  the  wars  by  land  and  sea  in  America 
during  the  eighteenth  century,  ending  with  the 
exclusion  of  France  in  1763 ;  and  then  proceeds 
to  the  foundation  of  a  foreign  office,  a  foreign 
system,  and  a  foreign  poHcy  by  the  Continental 
Congress,  and  thus  to  the  diplomacy  of  the 
Federal  Republic  in  all  its  ramifications. 
77.  Bibiio-  The  general  bibliographies  of  American  his- 
Sd*!***^*^  tory  include  most  of  the  special  books  on  diplo- 
macy down  to  about  1895,  although  none  of 
them  except  Winsor  have  distinct  sections  on 
the  subject.    See  also  below  (§  78  C)  on  Treatises 


Bibliographies  243 

on  International  Law.  The  principal  general 
bibliographies  are  as  follows  : 

Channing  and  Hart,  Guide  to  tfie  Study  of 
American  History  (Boston,  1897),  includes  lists 
of  indexes  to  public  documents  (§  16  e);  general 
comprehensive  works  (§  20);  sources  of  histori- 
cal geography  (§  21  d);  biographies  (§  25); 
colonial  records  (§  29) ;  works  of  statesmen 
(§  32);  autobiographies  (§  33);  collections  of 
documents  (§  34);  and  topical  references  from 
1492  down  to  1865  (§§   144-214). 

W.  E.  Foster,  References  to  the  History  of 
Presidential  Administrations,  jy8g-i88s  (New 
York,  1885).  —  Includes  diplomatic  materials. 

BowKER  AND  Iles,  The  Reader's  Guide  in 
Economic,  Social,  and  Political  Science  (New 
York,  1 891).  Collects  some  titles  on  pages 
119-123. 

•JosEPHus  Nelson  Larned,  editor,  The  Lit- 
erature of  American  History:  a  Bibliographical 
Guide  {\.o  appear  in  1902).  —  A  classified  bibli- 
ography of  American  history  in  general ;  about 
three  thousand  titles,  each  annotated  by  an  ex- 
pert. Part  I  is  a  very  thorough  and  convenient 
account  of  archives  (American  and  foreign), 
collections,  and  special  bibliographies.  There 
is  no  separate  section  on  diplomatic  history. 
Books  on  that  subject  appear  under  the  chrono- 
logical and  topical  divisions. 

The  following  volumes  have  lists  of  books, 


244  Bibliography 

more  or  less  systematic,  either  on  diplomacy  in 
general  (with  such  classification  as  makes  it 
easy  to  select  material  on  America),  or  on 
American  foreign  affairs  only  : 

•Charles  Calvo,  Le  Droit  International 
Thiorique  et  Pratique  (6  vols.,  Paris,  1887- 
1896).  —  Includes  an  elaborate  study  of  the 
literature  of  international  law,  with  sources. 
See  especially  Vol.  I,  101-138;  Vol.  VI  ("Sup- 
plement G6n6ral "),  xxix-lxi. 

William  Isaac  Fletcher,  editor,  The  "A. 
L.  A."  Index ;  an  Index  to  General  Literature 
(Boston,  1893).  — An  attempt  to  index  volumes 
of  collected  essays  and  like  materials  containing 
specific  chapters  on  special  questions. 

William  Isaac  Fletcher  and  Richard 
Rogers  Bowker,  The  Annual  Literary  Ifidex 
(New  York,  1893-).  —  This  is  a  supplement  to 
both  Poole  and  The  "A.  L.  A."  Index,  in  annual 
volumes  (beginning  with  the  year  1892),  index- 
ing periodicals,  essays,  book  chapters,  etc.,  in 
classified  entries. 

*A.  P.  C.  Griffin,  List  of  Books  {with  ref- 
erences to  Periodicals^  relating  to  the  Theory 
of  Colonization,  Government  of  Dependencies, 
Protectorates,  and  Related  Topics  (2d  ed.,  Wash- 
ington, 1900).  —  Especially  serviceable  on  the 
latest  diplomatic  questions. 

A.  P.  C.  Griffin  and  P.  Lee  Phillips,  List 
of  Books  relating  to  Cuba  {including  References 


Bibliographies  245 

to  Collected  Works  and  Periodicals)^  with  Bibli- 
ography of  Maps  (Washington,  1898).  Also 
printed  as  Senate  Executive  Documents,  55 
Cong.,  2  Sess.,  No.  161. 

A.  P.  C.  Griffin,  List  of  Books  relating  to 
Hawaii  {including  References  to  Collected  Works 
and  Periodicals)  (Washington,  1898). 

A.  P.  C.  Griffin,  A  List  of  Books  {with  Ref- 
erences to  Periodicals)  on  Porto  Rico  (Washing- 
ton, 1 901). 

Albert  Bushnell  Hart,  Handbook  of  the 
History,  Diplomacy,  and  Government  of  the 
United  States  (Cambridge,  1901).  —  Special  col- 
lection (§  12);  list  of  lectures  with  specific  ref- 
erences (§  20);  special  topics  with  references 
(§§  62-93). 

Franz  de  Holtzendorff  et  Alphonse 
RiviER,  Introduction  au  Droit  des  Gens  (Paris, 
1889).  —  Part  IV  of  this  work  (pp.  351-494)  is 
a  discussion  of  the  literature  of  international 
law,  in  groups ;  especially  English  authors 
C§  116),  American  authors  (§  117),  Spanish- 
American  and  Brazilian  authors  (§  119). 

•Leonard  Augustus  Jones,  An  Index  to 
Legal  Periodical  Literature  (2  vols.,  Boston, 
1888,  1899).  —  Vol.  I  indexes  a  hundred  and 
fifty-eight  sets  of  periodicals  down  to  1886; 
Vol.  II  indexes  a  few  sets  before  1887  which 
were  omitted  in  Vol.  I,  and  then  brings  down 
the  work  to  cover  1 887-1 898,  including  many 


246  Bibliography 

articles  from  general  periodicals.  The  work  is 
indispensable  to  the  searcher  for  discussions  on 
special  topics. 

John  Bassett  Moore,  American  Foreign  Pol- 
icy (m  preparation,  1902).  —  Will  contain  a  select 
general  bibliography,  and  topical  bibhographies. 

*JoHN  Bassett  Moore,  History  and  Digest 
of  the  International  Arbitrations  to  which  the 
United  States  has  been  a  Party  (6  vols.,  Wash- 
ington, 1898).  —  List  of  cases,  I,  Ixiii-lxxxii ; 
list  of  authorities,  I,  Ixxxiii-xcviii.  The  foot- 
notes throughout  are  a  most  valuable  guide  to 
materials,  and  especially  to  official  correspond- 
ence. 

*  William  Frederick  Poole,  William  Isaac 
Fletcher,  and  others,  editors,  Poole's  Index 
to  Periodical  Literature,  1 802-1 881  (rev.  ed.,  2 
vols.,  Boston,  1893).  First  Supplement,  1882- 
1886  (Boston,  1888).  Second  Supplement,  1887- 
i8gi  (Boston,  1893).  Third  Supplement,  i8g2- 
/(Jpd  (Boston,  1897). — A  well-known  and  invalu- 
able series  of  guides  to  the  numerous  valuable 
articles,  often  by  experts,  in  periodicals.  The 
Abridged  Edition,  i8i5-i8gg  (Boston,  1901),  re- 
fers only  to  a  short  list  of  periodicals. 

*  United  States,  Treaties  and  Conventions 
concluded  between  the  United  States  of  America 
and  other  Powers  since  fuly  4, 1776  (Washing- 
ton, 1889). — To  this  volume  Mr.  J.  C.  Bancroft 
Davis  has  appended  (pp.  12 17-1406)  very  valu- 


Bibliographies  ^47 

able  historical  notes,  with  detailed  references  to 
government  publications  and  some  other  sources. 

♦Francis  Wharton,  Digest  of  the  Interna- 
tional Law  of  the  United  States  (3  vols., 
Washington,  1886).  —  The  references  in  this 
work  are  practically  a  classified  bibliography 
of  official  source-material.  See  especially  Vol. 
I,  iii-ix,  "  Preliminary  remarks." 

•Justin  Winsor,  Narrative  and  Critical  His- 
tory of  America  (8  vols.,  Boston,  1 886-1 889). 
—  Includes  a  critical  discussion  of  authorities 
down  to  about  1850  (VII,  461-562);  an  account 
of  the  manuscript  sources  of  American  history, 
including  archives  (VIII,  413-468);  and  an 
appendix  on  comprehensive  printed  authorities 

(VIII,  469-507). 

In  every  field  of  diplomacy,  the  ground  has  78.  Second- 
been  to  some  degree  gone  over  by  text-writers  *^  "'"" 
on  international  law  and  by  general  historians  ; 
of  late  years  a  literature  of  special  treatises  and 
monographs  has  sprung  up.  Out  of  all  these 
discussions  a  choice  has  been  made  in  the  list 
below  of  those  which  have  most  reference  to 
American  conditions  and  experience,  which  have 
the  most  useful  footnotes  and  bibliographies, 
and  which,  from  the  character  of  their  authors 
or  from  their  freshness  and  originality,  seem 
likely  to  be  most  to  the  point.  Many  of  the 
secondary  books  also  contain  source-materials, 
in  appendices  or  in  extracts. 


24^  Bibliography 


A.  General         There   is   no   one  work  covering  the  whole 

^ScTn       ^^^^  °^  American  diplomacy,  both  the  colonial 

Diplomacy,     and  the  federal  period.     The  following  books 

include  parts  of  the  subject,  and  are  useful  for 

a  general  survey;    none  of  them  are  provided 

with  elaborate  footnotes : 

William  Eleroy  Curtis,  TAe  United  States 
and  Foreign  Powers  (New  York,  1899).  —  This 
is  a  little  book  which  includes  a  sketch  of  the 
diplomatic  service ;  chapters  on  Latin-American 
relations,  the  Monroe  doctrine,  and  the  inter- 
oceanic  canal ;  and  then  a  study  of  the  relations 
of  the  United  States  with  the  various  foreign 
powers  in  succession.  It  is  not  a  consecutive 
work,  nor  is  it  marked  by  deep  knowledge  of 
international  law. 

John  Watson  Foster,  A  Century  of  Ameri- 
can Diplomacy,  1176-1876  (Boston,  1900). — 
This  is  a  general  study  of  American  diplomacy 
by  a  distinguished  diplomat,  with  a  special 
chapter  on  the  Monroe  doctrine  from  the  con- 
ventional point  of  view.  The  book  is  strongest 
on  the  diplomacy  since  the  Civil  War. 

John  B.  Henderson,  Jr.,  American  Diplo- 
matic Questions  (New  York,  1901).  —  Confined 
to  five  recent  questions — Northwest  and  North- 
east Fisheries,  Samoa,  Canal,  and  Monroe 
Doctrine. 

*John  Holladay  Latan^,  The  Diplomatic 
Relations  of   the    United  States  and  Spanish 


Diplomatic  Histories       249 

America  (Baltimore,  19CX)). — Though  covering 
only  one  field  of  American  foreign  affairs,  this 
is  one  of  the  handiest  and  best  books  on  inter- 
American  relations.  Well  printed,  with  foot- 
notes. 

♦Theodore  Lyman,  The  Diplomacy  of  the 
United  States,  being  an  Account  of  the  Foreign 
Relations  of  the  Country,  from  the  first  Treaty 
with  France  in  1778  (2d  ed.,  2  vols.,  Boston, 
1828). —  This  is  a  more  elaborate  attempt  to 
treat  American  diplomacy  as  a  separate  subject, 
but  it  was  written  before  the  publication  of 
some  important  materials.  It  comes  down  to 
1828,  including  relations  with  Barbary  powers 
and  Latin-American  states. 

Alfred  Thayer  Mahan,  The  Interest  of 
America  in  Sea  Power,  Present  and  Future 
(Boston,  1897).  —  A  discussion  by  an  expert  on 
our  foreign  commercial  and  diplomatic  policy. 

•John  Bassett  Moore,  American  Foreign 
Policy.  (In  preparation,  1902.) — This  work, 
by  an  experienced  diplomat,  will  cover  briefly 
the  whole  field  of  American  diplomacy. 

•Eugene  Schuyler,  American  Diplomacy 
and  the  Furtherance  of  Commerce  (New  York, 
1886).  —  This  is  a  suggestive  book  devoted 
chiefly  to  commercial  relations,  written  by  a 
man  who  had  had  much  experience  in  the  con- 
sular service. 

Freeman    Snow,    Treaties    atid     Topics    in 


250 


Bibliography 


B.  General 
Histories 
containing 
Discussions 
of  Diplo- 
matic Topics. 


American  Diplomacy  (Boston,  1894).  —  Half  of 
this  book  is  an  abstract  of  treaties;  the  other 
half  is  made  up  of  essays  on  the  Monroe  doc- 
trine, the  fisheries,  and  the  Bering  Sea  question. 

William  Henry  Trescot,  The  Diplomacy 
of  the  Revolution :  an  Historical  Study  (New 
York,  1852). 

William  Henry  Trescot,  The  Diplomatic 
History  of  the  Administrations  of  Washington 
and  Adams,  iy8Q-i8oi  (Boston,  1857).  —  These 
two  books  taken  together  are  a  serviceable 
account  of  the  quarter-century  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Revolution  to  the  administration  of 
Jefferson.     Almost  no  footnotes. 

From  the  numerous  histories  concerning  con- 
siderable areas  of  American  history,  the  follow- 
ing have  been  selected  as  furnishing  the  largest 
and  most  pertinent  discussions  of  foreign  re- 
lations : 

*  Henry  Adams,  History  of  the  United  States 
during  the  Administrations  of  Jefferson  and 
Madison  (9  vols.,  New  York,  1 889-1 891).  —  A 
most  searching  account  of  the  diplomacy  of 
neutral  trade  and  the  War  of  18 12. 

George  Bancroft,  A  History  of  the  United 
States  {1st  ed.,  10  vols.,  Boston,  1834-1874). — 
From  the  discovery  to  1782;  some  of  the  vol- 
umes of  this  edition  have  footnotes  which  are 
omitted  in  later  editions. 

George  Bancroft,  A  History  of  the  Forma- 


General  Histories  25 1 

Hon  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
(2  vols.,  New  York,  1885). — A  continuation  of 
his  history  down  to  the  organization  of  the 
federal  government.  Contains  elaborate  foot- 
notes and  appendices  of  documents. 

♦Hubert  Howe  Bancroft,  History  of  the 
Pacific  States  of  North  America  (34  vols.,  San 
Francisco,  1882- 1890).  —  Great  detail  on  the 
Spanish  settlements  and  colonial  controversies 
with  the  French  and  English;  also  on  the 
annexation  of  Texas,  California,  Oregon,  and 
Alaska. 

Montagu  Burrows,  The  History  of  the  For- 
eign Policy  of  Great  Britain  (New  York,  1895). 

John  Andrew  Doyle,  The  English  in  Amer- 
ica ;  Virginia^  Maryland,  and  the  Carolinas 
(London,  1882).  TJu  English  in  America  ;  tJie 
Puritan  Colonies  (2  vols.,  London,  1887). — 
These  three  volumes  are  parts  of  a  work  still  in 
progress,  which  will  be  a  standard  history  of 
American  colonization,  including  diplomatic 
relations.     Good  footnotes. 

•Richard  Hildreth,  The  History  of  the 
United  States  of  America  (rev.  ed.,  6  vols.,  New 
York,  1854-1855).  —  Some  narrative  and  diplo- 
matic discussions  of  the  colonial  epoch,  and  of 
the  main  issues  under  the  federal  government 
down  to  1820. 

William  Kingsford,  The  History  of  Canada, 
1608-1841  (10  vols.,  London,  etc.,  1888-1898). 


252  Bibliography 

♦William  Edward  Hartpole  Lecky,  A 
History  of  England  in  the  Eighteenth  Century 
(8  vols.,  London,  1878- 1890;  also  an  American 
reprint).  —  Some  account  of  the  eighteenth- 
century  diplomacy  relative  to  America. 

♦Alfred  Thayer  Mahan,  The  Influence  of 
Sea  Power  upon  History,  1660-1783  (Boston, 
1890).  —  An  epoch-making  book,  indispensable 
for  an  understanding  of  the  wars  and  diplomacy 
of  the  eighteenth  century  as  they  affected 
America. 

Alfred  Thayer  Mahan,  The  Influence  of 
Sea  Power  upon  the  French  Revolution  and 
Empire,  I7gj-i8i2  (2  vols.,  Boston,  1892).  —  A 
supplement  to  the  above  volume;  includes  a 
discussion  of  neutral  trade. 

*James  Ford  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United 
States  from  the  Compromise  of  1850  (4  vols, 
published,  New  York,  1893-1899).  —  Includes  a 
most  excellent  discussion  of  the  diplomacy  of 
the  United  States  just  before  and  during  the 
Civil  War.     Still  in  progress. 

Theodore  Roosevelt,  The  Winning  of  the 
West,  iy6Q-i8o/ {4 -vols.,  New  York,  1 889-1 896). 

James  Schooler,  History  of  the  United  States 
of  America  under  the  Constitution  (rev.  ed.,  6 
vols.,  New  York,  1 895-1 899).  —  Brief  account 
of  diplomatic  relations  as  a  part  of  the  gen- 
eral history  of  the  United  States  from  1783  to 
1865. 


General  Histories  253 

Sir  John  Robert  Seeley,  Tlie  Expansion  of 
England:  Two  Courses  of  Lectures  (Boston, 
1883).  —  An  account  of  the  colonization  policy 
of  Great  Britain  and  its  effect  on  England. 

♦Sir  John  Robert  Seeley,  The  Growth  of 
British  Policy:  an  Historical  Essay  (2  vols., 
Cambridge,  Eng.,  1895).  —  Covers  the  field  from 
1588  to  1 714;  brings  out  the  foreign  relations 
of  England  on  the  colonial  side. 

Edward  Smith,  Englattd  and  America  after  In- 
dependence:  a  Short  ExaniitMtion  of  their  Interna- 
tional Intercourse,  77(?j-/*7^  (Westminster,  1900). 

•Justin  Winsor,  Narrative  and  Critical  His- 
tory of  America  (8  vols.,  Boston,  1 886-1 889). 
— The  work  abounds  throughout  in  footnotes  and 
critical  discussions  of  authorities.  See  especially 
Vol.  Ill,  chs.  i-iv,  on  the  first  English  claims 
and  settlements ;  Vol.  IV,  on  the  French,  Dutch, 
and  Swedes  in  America ;  Vol.  V,  ch.  i,  on 
Canada  and  Louisiana ;  chs.  vii-viii,  on  French 
and  Indian  Wars  down  to  1763;  Vol.  VII,  chs. 
i-ii,  on  the  diplomacy  of  the  Revolution  ;  ch.  vii, 
on  diplomacy  from  1789  to  1850. 

Justin  Winsor,  Christopfur  Columbus,  and 
how  he  Received  and  Imparted  the  Spirit  of 
Discovery  (Boston ,  1 89 1 ). 

Justin  Winsor,  Cartier  to  Frontenac :  Geo- 
graphical Discovery  in  the  Interior  of  North 
America  in  its  Historical  Relations,  1534-iyoo 
(Boston,  1894). 


on  Interna- 
tional Law. 


254  Bibliography 

Justin  Winsor,  The  Mississippi  Basin :  the 
Struggle  in  America  between  England  and 
France y  1697-1763  (Boston,  1895). 

Justin  Winsor,  The  Westward  Movement: 
the  Colonies  and  the  Republic  West  of  the  Alle- 
ghanies,  1763-1798  (Boston,  1897).  —  These  four 
volumes  are  the  best  systematic  account  of  the 
rivalries  for  the  possession  of  America,  includ- 
ing some  diplomatic  questions, 
c.  Treatises  Many  of  the  most  valuable  works  on  inter- 
national relations  are  treatises  on  international 
law,  especially  those  written  by  Americans  or 
with  special  reference  to  America.  Lists  of 
such  treatises  may  be  found  in  T.  A.  Walker, 
Science  of  International  Law,  pp.  vii-xvi;  Theo- 
dore D.  WooLSEY,  International  Law  (6th  ed.), 
405  et  seq. ;  and  especially  in  Charles  Calvo, 
Droit  International^  I,  101-138,  VI,  xxix-lxi. 
HoLTZENDORFF,  Calvo,  Phillimore,  and  Pra- 
DiER-FoDERE  are  the  fullest  authorities,  and,  in 
the  last  editions,  are  among  the  most  recent. 
They  all  freely  use  American  precedents.  The 
best  treatises  as  aids  to  a  study  of  American 
diplomacy  are  the  following  : 

*Charles  Calvo,  Le  Droit  International 
Th/orique  et  Pratique  (6  vols.,  Paris,  1887- 
1 896).  —  An  exhaustive  treatise  written  by  an 
Argentine  diplomat.  Vol,  I,  i-ioi,  contains  a 
brief  sketch  of  general  diplomatic  history  down 
to  1887. 


Treatises  255 

George  B.  Davis,  Outlines  of  International 
Law{^eyf  York,  1887). 

GuiLLAUME  DE  GARDEN,  Histoire  Ginirale  des 
Trait^s  de  Paix{\^  vols.,  Paris,  1 848-1 887). — 
Covers  the  period  1536  to  181 5 ;  it  is  a  history 
of  the  events  leading  up  to  each  treaty,  but  does 
not  contain  the  texts. 

Henry  Glass,  Marine  International  Law 
(Annapolis,  1885). 

•William  Edward  Hall,  International  Law 
(Oxford,  1880;  4th  ed.,  1895).  —  Perhaps  the 
best  one-volume  treatise ;  many  references  to 
American  precedents. 

Henry  Wager  Halleck,  International  Law; 
or,  Rules  regulating  the  Intercourse  of  States  in 
Peace  and  War  (New  York,  1861  ;  Sir  Sherston 
Baker's  3d  ed.,  2  vols.,  London,  1893).  —  Writ 
ten  by  the  former  general-in-chief  of  the  United 
States  army.  Dry,  but  thoughtful  and  well 
analyzed ;  frequent  references  to  American  prec- 
edents. 

L.  B.  Hautefeuille,  Questions  de  Droit 
Maritime  International  (Paris,  1868). 

*  Franz  von  Holtzendorff,  Handbuch  des 
V'dlkerrechts  auf  Grundlage  Europdischer  Staats- 
praxis  (4  vols.,  Berlin,  1885-1889).  —  A  coop- 
erative work  by  eminent  publicists.  Abundant 
references  to  other  treatises,  and  very  numerous 
precedents,  with  reference  to  sources. 

James    Kent,     Commctitarits    on    Amefican 


256  Bibliography 

Law  (4  vols.,  New  York,  1 826-1 830;  12th 
ed.,  by  O.  W.  Holmes,  Boston,  1873;  *J.  T. 
Abdy's  2d  ed.  of  Commentary  on  International 
Law,  Cambridge,  Eng.,  1878).  — The  treatise 
on  international  law  is  in  Vol.  I. 

Thomas  Joseph  Lawrence,  The  Principles 
of  International  Law  (3d  Boston,  1900).  —  One 
of  the  most  recent  text-books;  some  serious 
slips. 

Sir  Robert  Phillimore,  Commentaries  upon 
International  Law  (4  vols.,  London,  1854-1861 ; 
3d  ed.,  1879-1889).  —  The  most  detailed  and  ex- 
haustive work  in  English,  with  elaborate  refer- 
ences. 

John  Norton  Pomeroy,  Lectures  on  Interna- 
tional Law  in  Time  of  Peace  (Theodore  S. 
Woolsey's  ed.,  Boston,  1886). — Reprint  of  lec- 
tures delivered  in  1866- 1867;  few  references  to 
sources. 

Paul  Louis  Ernest  Pradier-Fod^re,  Traits 
de  Droit  International  Public  Europ^en  &  Ami- 
ricain,  suivant  les  Progrh  de  la  Science  et  de 
la  Pratique  Contemporaine  (j  vols,  published, 
Paris,  1885-1897).  —  Still  incomplete.  Refers 
to  late  incidents  and  precedents;  many  allu- 
sions to  Latin-American  affairs ;  clumsy  ar- 
rangement and  references ;  not  very  serviceable. 

Rafael  Fernando  Seijas,  El  Derecho  Inter- 
nacional  Hispano-Americano  Publico  y  Privado 
(6  vols.,  Caracas,  1884-1885). 


Treatises  257 

Freeman  Snow,  International  Law  (Wash- 
ington, 1898). 

Charles  H.  Stockton,  The  Laws  and  Usages 
of  War  at  Sea  —  A  Naval  War  Code  (Washing- 
ton, 1900). 

Jose  Maria  Torres-Caicedo,  Union  Latino- 
Americano ;  pensamiento  de  Bolivar  para  formar 
una  Liga  Americana;  su  Origen y  sus  Desarroe- 
los  y  Estudio  sobre  la  Cuestion ;  6  un  Gobiemo 
legitime  es  responsable  par  los  Clanos  y  Per- 
guicios  occasionados  a  los  Extrangeros  par  las 
Facciones  (  Paris,  1 86  5  ). 

Thomas  Alfred  Walker,  The  Science  of 
International  Law  (London,  1893).  —  Brief, 
clear,  and  abounds  in  illustrations  from  recent 
historical  events. 

•Francis  Wharton,  Commentaries  on  Law, 
embracing  Chapters  on  the  Nature,  the  Source, 
and  the  His  tor)'  of  Law,  on  International  Law, 
Public  and  Private,  and  on  Constitutional  and 
Statutory  Law  (Philadelphia,  1884).  —  By  the 
editor  of  the  Digest.  Includes  a  treatise  on 
public  international  law  (§§  11 5-251);  very 
good  on  American  relations. 

•Henry  Wheaton,  Elements  of  International 
Law  (Philadelphia  and  London,  1836;  Law- 
rence's 2d  ed.,  Boston,  1863;  Dana's  8th  ed., 
Boston,  1866,  the  best  but  unfortunately  out  of 
print;  Boyd's  2d  ed.,  London,  1880).  —  By  an 
eminent  diplomat   and   publicist.     A  standard 


25S  Bibliography 

work,    enriched   with   valuable    notes    by    the 
American  and  English  editors. 

Henry  Wheaton,  History  of  the  Law  of  Na- 
tions in  Europe  and  America  from  the  Earliest 
Times  to  1842  (New  York,  1845).  —  On  the  prog- 
ress of  international  law  from  1648  to  1843; 
a  study  of  principles  rather  than  events. 

♦Theodore  Dwight  Woolsey,  Introdtiction 
to  the  Study  of  International  Law,  designed  as 
an  aid  in  Teaching  and  in  Historical  Studies 
(Boston,  i860;  6th  ed.,  by  T.  S.  Woolsey,  New 
York,  1 891).  —  A  brief  and  very  serviceable 
text-book,  with  abundant  references  to  Ameri- 
can practice  and  elaborate  bibliographical  mate- 
rial. 
D.  Works  Under  this  caption  have  been  gathered  the 

Topics."*  best  monographs  and  special  discussions  on  dip- 
lomatic topics.  Many  titles  have  been  omitted 
because  proceeding  from  writers  without  a  large 
reputation,  or  because  covering  rather  minute 
fields,  or  because  superseded. 

John  Quincy  Adams,  The  Duplicate  Letters, 
the  Fisheries,  and  the  Mississippi.  Documents 
relating  to  Transactions  at  the  Negotiation  of 
Ghent  (Washington,  1822). 

American  Academy  of  Political  and  So- 
cial Science,  The  Foreign  Policy  of  the  United 
States,  Political  and  Commercial  (Philadelphia, 
1899).  —  Addresses  and  discussion  at  the  annual 
meeting,  April  7-8,  1899. 


Monographs  259 

The  American  Remembrancer ;  or,  An  Impar- 
tial Collection  of  Essays,  Resolves,  Speeches,  etc.. 
Relative,  or  having  Affinity  to  the  Treaty  with 
Great  Britain  {t,  vols.,  Philadelphia,  1795). 

The  American  Conferetice  on  International 
Arbitration,  held  in  Washington,  D.  C,  i8g6 
(New  York,  n.d.). 

pRANgois,  Marquis  de  Barbe  Marbois,  TJie 
History  of  Louisiana,  particularly  of  the  Cession 
of  that  Colony  to  the  United  States  of  America  ; 
with  an  Introductory  Essay  on  the  Constitution 
and  Government  of  the  United  States  (Law- 
rence's translation,  Philadelphia,  1830). 

Charles  Cotesworth  Beaman,  Jr.,  T/ic 
National  and  Private  "Alabama  Claims"  and 
their  "  Final  and  Amicable  Settlement "  (Wash- 
ington, 1 871). 

Maurice  D.  de  Beaumarchais,  La  Doctrine 
de  Monroe  (Paris,  1898). 

George  Bemis,  American  Neutrality;  its 
Honorable  Past,  its  Expedient  Future  (Boston, 
1866). 

*MouNTAGUE  Bernard,  A  Historical  Account 
of  the  Neutrality  of  Great  Britain  during  the 
American  Civil  W^^r  (London,  1870). 

Edward  Bicknell,  The  Territorial  Acquisi- 
tions of  the  United  States :  an  Historical  Review 
(Boston,  1899). 

•John  Bigelow,  France  and  the  Confederate 
Navy,    1862-1868:    an    International    Episode 


26o  Bibliography 

(London,  1888).  —  By  a  former  minister  to 
France. 

Charles  Brandon  Boynton,  English  and 
French  Neutrality  and  the  Anglo-French  Alliance ^ 
in  their  Relations  to  the  United  States  and 
Russia  (Cincinnati,  1864), 

*James  D.  Bulloch,  The  Secret  Service  of  the 
Confederate  States  in  Europe  (2  vols..  New  York, 
1884). 

James  Morton  Callahan,  The  Neutrality  of 
the  American  Lakes  and  Anglo-American  Rela- 
tions {B3\\\moYQ,  1898). 

James  Morton  Callahan,  Cuba  and  Inter- 
national Relations :  a  Historical  Study  in 
American  Diplomacy   (Baltimore,  1899). 

James  Morton  Callahan,  American  Rela- 
tions in  the  Pacific  and  the  Far  East,  jy84-igoo 
(Baltimore,  1901). 

James  Morton  Callahan,  The  Diplomatic 
History  of  the  Southern  Confederacy  (Baltimore, 
1 901).  —  These  are  four  ambitious  volumes,  ap- 
pearing in  too  rapid  succession. 

George  Coggeshall,  History  of  the  Ameri- 
can Privateers  (New  York,  1856). 

Charles  Arthur  Conant,  The  United  States 
in  the  Onent:  the  Nature  of  the  Economic  Prob- 
lem (Boston,  1900). 

Caleb  Cushing,  The  Treaty  of  Washington ; 
its  Negotiation^  Execution,  and  the  Discussions 
relating  thereto  (New  York,  1873). 


Monographs  261 

W.  Evans  Darby,  International  Tribunals :  a 
Collection  of  the  Various  Schemes  which  have 
been  propounded  and  of  Instances  sittce  181^ 
(London,  1900). 

Henri  Doniol,  Histoire  de  la  Participation 
de  la  France  a  I'^tablissement  des  Etats-Unis 
d' Antique.  Correspondance  diplomatique  et 
documents  (5  vols.,  Paris,  1886-1892). 

Joseph  I.  Doran,  Our  Fishery  Rights  in  the 
North  Atlantic  (Philadelphia,  1888). 

♦William  Edward  Burghardt  DuBois, 
The  Suppression  of  the  African  Slave-Trade  to 
the  United  States  of  America^  1638-1870  (New 
York,  1896). 

John  Durand,  New  Materials  for  the  History  of 
the  American  Revolution.  Translated  from  Docu- 
ments in  the  French  Archives  (New  York,  1889). 

Andrew  Ellicott,  Journal  of  A.  Ellicott, 
Late  Commissioner  on  Behalf  of  the  United 
States,  in  iyg6-i8oo,  for  determining  the  Boun- 
dary between  the  United  States  and  the  Pos- 
sessions of  his  Catholic  Majesty  in  America 
(Philadelphia,   1803). 

Charles  B.  Elliot,  The  United  States  and 
the  Northeastern  Fisluries.  A  History  of  the 
Fishery  Question  (Minneapolis,  1887). 

G.  W.  Featherstonhaugh,  Observatiotis  upon 
the  Treaty  of  Washington,  signed  August  g,  1842, 
together  with  a  Map  to  illustrate  the  Boundary 
Z,»W  (London,  1843). 


262  Bibliography 

James  Champlin  Fernald,  The  Imperial 
Republic  (New  York,  1898).— With  five  Maps. 

Albert  Gallatin,  A  Memoir  on  the  North- 
eastern Boundary ^  in  Connexion  with  Mr.  Jays 
Map ;  with  a  speech  on  the  same  Subject  by  Dan- 
iel Webster ^  delivered  April  /j,  184.3  (New  York, 

1843). 

A.  G.  Gebhardt,  State  Papers  relating  to  the 
Diplomatick  Transactions  between  the  American 
and  French  Governments,  lygj-iSoo  (3  vols., 
London,  18 16). 

James  Watson  Gerard,  The  Pectce  of  Utrecht; 
a  Historical  Review  of  the  Great  Treaty  of  ly ij- 
77/^  (New  York,  1885). 

Franklin  H,  Giddings,  Democracy  and  Em- 
pire, with  Studies  of  their  Psychological,  Eco- 
nomic, and  Moral  Foundation  (New  York,  1900). 

William  Elliot  Griffis,  America  in  the 
East:  a  Glance  at  our  History,  Prospects,  Prob- 
lems, and  Duties  in  the  Pacific  Ocean  (New  York, 
1899). 

Robert  G.  Harper,  Observations  on  the  Dis- 
pute between  the  United  States  and  France  (Lon- 
don, 1898). 

Thomas  Le  Grand  Harris,  The  Trent  Affair 
(Indianapolis,  etc.,  1896). 

Henry  Harrisse,  The  Diplomatic  History  of 
America  (London,  1897).  On  the  demarcation 
between  Spain  and  Portugal  in  15 13. 

L.  B.  Hautefeuille,  Quelques  questiones  de 


Monographs  263 

Droit  International  Maritime  d  propos  de  la 
guerre  (TAfn^rique  (Leipzig  and  Paris,  1861). 

F.  E.  Haynes,  The  Reciprocity  Treaty  with 
Catiada  0/1834  (Baltimore,  1892). 

BiNGER  Hermann,  The  Louisiana  Purchase, 
and  our  Title  West  of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  with 
a  Review  of  Annexation  by  the  United  States 
(Washington,  1898). 

Frederick  William  Holls,  The  Peace  Con- 
ference at  the  Hague  and  its  Bearings  on  Inter- 
national Law  and  Policy  (New  York,  1900).  — 
A  rather  optimistic  account  of  the  Conference 
and  its  work. 

Charles  I  sham.  The  Fishery  Question,  its 
Origin,  History,  and  Present  Situation,  with 
a  Map  of  the  Anglo-American  Fishing  Grounds 
and  a  Short  Bibliography  (New  York,  1887). 

David  Starr  Jordan,  Imperial  Democracy : 
a  Study  of  the  Relation  of  Government  by  the 
People,  Equality  before  the  Law,  and  other  Tenets 
of  Democracy,  to  the  Demands  of  a  Vigorous 
Foreign  Policy  and  other  Demands  of  Imperial 
Dominion  (New  York,  1899). 

Lindley  Miller  Keasbey,  The  Nicaragua 
Canal  and  the  Monroe  Doctrine :  a  Political  His- 
tory of  Isthmus  Transit  (New  York,  1896).  —  A 
labored  book  of  which  the  central  thought  is, 
that  every  American  statesman  who  did  not  in- 
sist on  the  exclusive  rights  of  the  United  States 
in  the  Isthmus  was  false  to  his  trust. 


264  Bibliography 

•Thomas  Joseph  Lawrence,  Essays  on  some 
Disputed  Questions  in  Modem  International  Law 
(2d  ed.,  Cambridge,  Eng.,  1885).  —  Includes 
several  essays  on  the  Monroe  doctrine  and 
Canal  diplomacy. 

•Alfred  Thayer  Mahan,  Lessons  of  the  War 
with  Spain,  and  other  Articles  (Boston,  1899). 

Alfred  Thayer  Mahan,  The  Problem  of 
Asia  and  its  Effect  on  International  Policies 
(Boston,  1900).  —  By  one  of  the  greatest  author- 
ities on  foreign  relations. 

Heinrich  Marquardsen,  Der  Trent  fall  i^x- 
langen,  1862). 

Viscount  W.  Fitzwilliam  Milton,  A  His- 
tory of  the  San  fuan  Water-boundary  Question, 
as  affecting  the  Division  of  Territory  between 
Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  (London, 
1869). 

John  Bassett  Moore,  A  Treatise  on  Extra- 
dition and  Interstate  Rendition  (2  vols.,  Boston, 
1861).  —  Includes  details  of  many  incidents  of 
diplomatic  discussion. 

Bernard  Moses,  The  Establishment  of  Span- 
ish Rule  in  America,  an  Introduction  to  the 
History  and  Politics  of  Spanish  America  (New 
York,  1898). 

Louis  de  Onis,  Memoir  upon  the  Negotiations 
betiveen  Spain  and  the  United  States  of  America 
which  led  to  the  Treaty  of  i8ig.  (Madrid,  1820. 
Watkins's  translation,  Washington,  182 1.) 


Monographs  265 

Hector  Petin,  Les  Etats-Unis  et  la  Doctrine 
de  Monroe  (Paris,  1901). 

*WiLLiAM  FiDDiAN  Reddaway,  The  Monroe 
Doctrine  (Cambridge,  Eng.,  1898). —  Perhaps 
the  best  discussion  of  the  contemporary  condi- 
tions of  the  doctrine. 

♦Paul  Samuel  Reinsch,  Colonial  Govern- 
ment (New  York,  1901).  —  Includes  a  special 
study  of  American  colonization. 

•Paul  Samuel  Reinsch,  World  Politics  at 
the  End  of  tJie  Nineteenth  Century  as  Influenced 
by  the  Oriental  Situation  (New  York,  1900). 

J.  C.  RoDRiGUES,  The  Pattama  Canal:  its 
History,  its  Political  Aspects,  and  Financial 
Difficulties  (New  York,  1885). 

♦Mattias  Romero,  Mexico  and  the  United 
States :  a  Study  of  Subjects  affecting  their  Politi- 
cal, Commercial,  and  Social  Relations  (New 
York,  1898). 

John  Thomas  Scharf,  History  of  the  Con- 
federate States  Navy  (New  York,  1887). 

Raphael  Semmes,  Service  Afloat;  or  The 
Remarkable  Career  of  tlie  Confederate  Cruisers 
Sumter  and  Alabama  during  the  War  between 
the  States  (Baltimore,  1887).  —  Gossipy,  but 
frank  and  enlightening. 

•John,  Lord  Sheffield,  Observations  on  the 
Commerce  of  the  American  States  {'Lor\dLor\,  1784). 

Stephen  Berrien  Stanton,  The  Behring 
Sea  Controversy  (New  York,  1892). 


266  Bibliography 

*Ira  Dudley  Travis,  The  History  of  tJu 
Clayton-Bulwer  Treaty  {Ann  Arbor,  1900).  —  A 
sound  discussion. 

W.  H.  Trescot,  a  Few  Thoughts  on  the  For- 
eign Policy  of  the   United  States  (Charleston, 

1849)- 

George  Fox  Tucker,  The  Monroe  Doctrine : 
a  Concise  History  of  its  Origin  and  Growth 
(Boston,  1885). 

Travers  Twiss,  Oregon  Question  examined 
in  Respect  to  Facts  and  the  Law  of  Nations 
(London,  1846). 

F.  H.  Upton,  The  Law  of  Nations  Affecting 
Commerce  during  War ;  with  a  Review  of  the 
Jurisdiction^  Practice,  and  Proceedings  of  Prize 
Courts  (New  York,  1861). 

Henry  Wheaton,  Enquiry  into  the  Validity 
of  the  British  Claim  to  a  Right  of  Visitation 
and  Search  of  American  Vessels ^  etc.  (London, 
1858). 

♦Theodore  Salisbury  Woolsey,  America's 
Foreign  Policy :   Essays  and  Addresses  (New 
York,  1898). 
E.Periodi-         There   is   no   American    periodical    devoted 
S^^ArtkS    especially  to  international  law,  though  there  are 
on  American  several  in  which  articles  on  international  rela- 
Dipiomacy.     ^j^j^g  appear.     For  lists  of  publications  and  for 
classified  references,  see  Poole's  Index  and  Jones' 
Index  to  Legal  Periodical  Literature.    The  regu- 
lar law  periodicals   often   have  very  valuable 


Periodicals  267 

articles  on  international  law.  —  A  few  titles  only 
are  here  given,  chiefly  in  English  : 

American  Academy  of  Political  and  So- 
cial Science,  .^ww^z^' (Philadelphia,  1890-). — 
Some  few  studies  on  foreign  relations. 

*  American  Annual  Cyclopedia  (40  vols,  to 
1900,  New  York,  1861-).  —  A  valuable  series, 
with  many  documents. 

^American  Historical  Review  (New  York, 
1 895-).  —  Many  studies  in  diplomatic  history. 

The  American  Law  Review  {Boston,  1866-). 

T/te  Annual  Register  (143  vols,  to  1900, 
London,  1759-).  —  A  collection  of  materials 
and  compilations  annually  published  for  nearly 
a  century  and  a  half;  often  very  service- 
able. 

Army  and  Navy  Journal  {^Q'w  York,  1863-). 

Association  for  the  Reform  and  Codifi- 
cation OF  THE  Law  of  Nations,  Reports  of 
Annual  Conferences  (London,  1873-). 

Forum  (New  York,  1886-).  —  Many  discus- 
sions by  public  men. 

Harper's  Magazine  (New  York,  18 50-). 

*The  Nation  (70  vols,  to  1900,  New  York, 
1865-).  —  Editorial  correspondence  and  reviews 
on  many  diplomatic  questions. 

National  Geographic  Magazine  (Washington, 
1 888-).  —  Excellent  accounts  of  boundary  con- 
troversies. 

*Niles's  Weekly  Register  {y^  vols.,  Baltimore, 


268  Bibliography 

1811-1848).  —  An  invaluable  repository  of  cur- 
rent documents  and  discussions. 

North-American  Review  (170  vols,  to  1900, 
Boston  and  New  York,  1815-).  —  For  the  first 
sixty  years  abounding  in  the  ablest  discussions 
of  public  affairs. 

Political  Science  Quarterlyi^trn  York,  1886-). 
—  Many  articles  on  foreign  relations  and  valu- 
able chronological  summaries  of  current  events. 

*  Statesman' s  Year-Book  (London,  1864-). — 
An  annual  survey  of  the  political  and  the  sta- 
tistical situation  of  the  world. 

*The  Times  (London,  1884-). — The  great 
English  daily;  has  pages  devoted  to  foreign 
news  from  all  over  the  world  ;  can  be  exploited 
by  means  of  a  special  annual  summary,  and  also 
by  a  quarterly  and  recently  a  monthly  index. 

The  Yale  Review  (New  York,  etc.,  1893-). — 
Discussions  of  colonization,  and  occasionally  of 
diplomatic  questions. 

The  following  foreign  international  law  peri- 
odicals from  time  to  time  print  discussions  on 
American  international  questions : 

Bulletin  de  la  Sociiti  de  la  Legislation  Com- 
par^e  (Paris,  1872-). 

Revue  de  Droit  International  et  de  Legislation 
Comparee  (32  vols,  to  1900,  Paris,  1869-). 

Revue  d' Histoire  Diplomatique  {V^ns,  1887-). 

*  Revue  G^nirale  de  Droit  International  Public 
(Paris,  1 894-). 


Treaties  269 

The  abundant  sources  of  American  diplo-  79.  Source, 
matic  history  have  as  yet  been  too  little  ex- 
plored. For  convenience  they  may  be  classified 
into  collections  of  treaties  and  documents;  offi- 
cial correspondence ;  and  private  biography,  me- 
moirs, and  correspondence. 

On  the  pre-constitutional  treaties  affecting  a.  Treaties. 
American  affairs,  see  a  synoptical  Hst  in  Wool- 
sey's  International  Law  (6th  ed.,  pp.  406-408), 
with  a  list  of  the  collections  of  treaties.  The 
following  titles  are  especially  serviceable  for  the 
diplomacy  of  the  colonial  period  : 

George  Chalmers,  A  Collection  of  Treaties 
between  Great  Britain  and  other  Powers  (2  vols., 
London,  1790).  —  Period  1 259-1 788. 

Jean  Dumont,  Corps  Universel  Diplomatique 
du  Droit  des  Gens,  contenant  un  Recueil  des 
Traitez  .  .  .  Capitulations  Impii-iales  et  Royales, 
etc. (8  vols.,  Amsterdam,  etc.,  1726-1731);  Sup- 
plement (5  vols.,  Amsterdam,  1739).  — Contains 
documents  from  800  a.d.  to  1730;  many  pieces 
beside  treaties  are  included  ;  all  the  texts  except 
the  Latin  are  translated  into  French.  There  is 
an  alphabetical  index  to  the  whole  at  the  end 
of  Supplement,  Vol.  IIL 

*A  General  Collection  of  Treatys,  Declara- 
tions of  War,  Manifestos,  and  other  Publick 
Papers,  relating  to  Peace  and  War  (2d  ed.,  4 
vols.,  London,  1732).  —  This  valuable  collection 
includes  materials  from  1495  to  1731. 


270  Bibliography 

Thomas  Rymer,  Foedera,  Conventiones,  Lit- 
erae^  et  cujuscunque  generis  Acta  Publica  (2d  ed., 
20  vols.,  London,  1727-1735).  —  Comes  down 
from  iioi  to  1654;  many  titles  in  English.  A 
Syllabus  in  English  by  T.  D.  Hardy  has  been 
published  (3  vols.,  London,  1869-188 5). 

The  treaties  of  the  federal  period  (i  778-1 901) 
are  regularly  printed  with  the  annual  statutes 
of  the  United  States,  and  also  in  two  official 
collections : 

United  States,  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United 
States,  relating  to  the  District  of  Columbia,  Post 
Office,  Public  Treaties  (Washington,  1875). 

United  States,  Treaties  and  Conventions  con- 
cluded between  the  United  States  of  America  and 
other  Powers  since  July  4,  lyyd  (Washington, 
1889);  also  printed  as  Senate  Executive  Docu- 
ment, 48  Cong.,  2  sess.,  No.  4/. 

Treaties  between  other  American  powers,  or 
between  American  powers  and  European  powers, 
or  between  European  powers  on  American  sub- 
jects, since  the  American  Revolution,  will  be 
found  in  the  standard  collections  of  state  papers, 
such  as  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  Ar- 
chives Diplomatiques,  Staatsarchiv  ;  and  also  in 
the  following  collections  (see  Tetot,  Repertoire 
des  Trait^s): 

*Carlos  Calvo,  Coleccion  Completa  de  los 
Tratados,  Convenciones,  Capitulaciones,  Armis- 
ticios  y  otros  Actos  diplomdticos  de  todos  los  Es- 


Treaties  271 

tados  de  la  America  Latina  .  .  .  desde  i4gj 
(11  vols.,  Paris,  1862-1869).  —  Comes  down  to 
1823 ;  includes  also  Spanish  and  Portuguese 
treaties  in  the  colonial  period. 

Charles  de  Martens  et  Ferdinand  de 
CussY,  Recueil  Manuel  Pratique  de  Trait^s^ 
Conventions,  et  autres  Actes  Diplotnatiques  (7 
vols.,  Leipzig,  1 846-1 857).  —  Covers  the  period 
1760-1856;  gives  significant  parts  of  treaties, 
or  refers  to  their  sources.  This  is  an  abridg- 
ment of  the  great  Martens,  Recueil,  etc. ;  the 
latter  continues  Dumont  and  Wenck,  and  is 
continued  by  the  following  work :  — 

Charles  Samwer  et  Jules  Hopf,  Nouveau 
Recueil  Gin^ral  de  Traitis  et  autres  Actes 
Relatifs  aux  Rapports  de  Droit  International 
(25  vols,  and  index,  to  1900,  Gottingen,  1876-). 
—  Treaties  and  other  documents  in  original  lan- 
guage or  in  French.    Period  1839  to  present  day. 

*TiTOT,  Repertoire  des  Traitis  de  Paix,  dalli- 
ance conventions  et  autres  actes  conclus  entre  toutes 
Us  puissatues  du  globe  principalment  depuis  la 
paix  de  Westphalie  jusqu'a  nos  jours  (2  pts., 
Paris,  1866). — Practically  an  index  to  Dumont 
and  the  other  great  collections,  covering  the 
period  from  1493  to  1866. 

Frederick  August  Wilhelm  Wenck,  Codex 
Juris  Gentium  Recentissimi  e  Tabulariorunt 
Exemplarumque  Fide  Dignarum  Monumentis 
Compositos  {i  vols.,  Leipzig,  1781-1795). 


272 


Bibliography 


B.  Official 
Collections 
of  Docu- 
ments. 


Indexes  and  finding-lists  of  public  documents 
are  enumerated  in  Channing  and  Hart,  Guide 
to  the.  Study  of  American  History ^  §  16  e.  A 
careful  list  of  indexes  and  other  aids  to  United 
States  government  publications  will  be  found 
in  American  Statistical  Association,  Pub- 
licatiofis,  VII  (1900).  Some  account  of  the 
publications  of  the  State  Department  appears 
in  Eugene  Schuyler,  American  Diplomacy, 
132-133.  In  Thomas  Hudson  McKee,  Reports 
of  the  Select  and  Special  Committees,  United 
States  Setmte,  and  Reports  of  Committees,  United 
States  House  of  Representatives  (both  published 
at  Washington,  1887),  are  lists  of  printed  re- 
ports made  by  Committees  on  Foreign  Rela- 
tions from  18 1 5  to  1887. 

A  few  despatches  and  treaties,  or  extracts 
from  despatches  and  treaties,  are  reprinted  in 
the  special  collections  made  for  the  use  of 
schools  and  colleges.  Thus  in  Hart  and 
Channing,  American  History  Leaflets,  appear 
correspondence  on  Cuba  (No.  2);  Monroe  Doc- 
trine (No.  4) ;  Bering  Sea  Controversy  (No.  6) ; 
Colonial  Wars  (Nos.  7,  14);  Navigation  Acts 
(No.  19);  Isthmus  Canal  (No.  34).  William 
Mac  Donald,  in  his  Select  Charters  and  Select 
Documents^  prints  a  few  treaties.  Many  useful 
documents  appear  in  the  annuals,  especially 
the  American  Annual  Cyclopcedia  (New  York, 
1861-cont.). 


Official  Indexes  273 

Ben.  Perley  Poore,  Descriptive  Catalogue 
of  the  Government  Publications  of  the  United 
States,  1774-188 1  (Washington,  1885). — The 
official  government  guide  to  all  documents;  so 
poorly  indexed  as  to  be  of  little  service.  From 
1 88 1  to  the  present  day  it  is  supplemented  by 
the  following  publications  by  a  competent  in- 
dexer : 

John  G.  Ames,  Comprehensive  Index,  188 1- 
i88p  (in  preparation). 

John  G.  Ames,  Comprehensive  Index  of  the 
Publications  of  the  United  States  Government^ 
i88g-i8gj  (Washington,  1894). 

John  G.  Ames,  Catalogue  of  the  Public  Docu- 
ments of  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
(3  vols,  published,  Washington,  1896-1899). — 
Covers  the  period  1893- 1897  ;  still  in  progress. 

There  are  three  indispensable  official  collec- 
tions of  diplomatic  materials,  viz. : 

*  Francis  Wharton,  Digest  of  the  Interna- 
tional Law  of  the  United  States,  taken  from 
Documents  issued  by  Presidents  and  Secretaries 
of  State,  and  from  Decisions  of  Federal  Courts 
and  Opinions  of  Attorneys-General  {i  vols.,  Wash- 
ington, 1886;  2d  ed.,  no  alteration  of  plates, 
1887).  —  This  series  gives  quotations,  often 
several  pages  in  extent,  from  printed  (and  occa- 
sionally un printed)  materials  in  the  State  De- 
partment, arranged  under  classified  headings  ; 
it  is   of   the    utmost  service  to  the  student   of 


274  Bibliography 

American  diplomacy.  A  reorganized  edition  is 
promised  for  1902  under  the  efficient  and 
thorough  editorship  of  John  Bassett  Moore. 

*JOHN  Bassett  Moore,  History  and  Digest 
of  the  International  Arbitrations  to  which  the 
United  States  lias  been  a  Party,  together  with 
Appendices  containing  the  Treaties  relating  to 
such  Arbitrations y  and  Historical  and  Legal 
Notes  on  other  International  Arbitrations  Ancient 
and  Modern,  and  on  the  Domestic  Commissions 
of  the  United  States  for  the  Adjustment  of  Inter- 
national Claims  (6  vols,,  Washington,  1898).  — 
Although  by  its  title  limited  to  a  discussion  of 
questions  which  have  involved  some  form  of  in- 
ternational arbitration,  as  a  matter  of  fact  nearly 
all  the  great  controversies  between  the  United 
States  and  other  powers  are  here  set  forth  in 
authentic  narrative,  fortified  with  abundant  cita- 
tions. Hundreds  of  cases  are  summarized; 
hundreds  of  others  are  referred  to.  The  book 
is  the  largest  single  contribution  ever  made  to 
the  knowledge  of  American  foreign  affairs. 

•James  D.  Richardson,  compiler,  A  Com- 
pilation of  the  Messages  and  Papers  of  the 
Presidents,  lySg-iSgy  (10  vols.,  Washington, 
1 896-1 899).  —  This  set  contains  the  annual  and 
the  occasional  messages  of  the  presidents,  in- 
cluding a  vast  amount  of  material  on  foreign 
affairs.  It  is  expected  to  be  ultimately  obtain- 
able from  the  government  at  cost. 


Official  Collections  275 

Of  much  service  to  the  student  of  diplomacy 
are  several  official  compendiums,  prepared  for 
the  guidance  of  diplomatic  officials,  of  which  the 
following  are  the  most  important : 

Compilation  of  Reports  of  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations^  United  States  Senate,  lyBg-igoi  (Sen- 
ate Executive  Documents,  56  Cong.,  2  sess.. 
No.  231,  eight  parts). 

Instructions  to  the  Diplomatic  Officers  of  the 
l/nited  States  (Wdishington,  1897). 

Regulations  prescribed  for  the  Use  of  the  Con- 
sular Service  of  the  United  States  (Washington, 
1896). 

One  of  the  principal  sources  of  international  c.  Cases  in 
law  is  the  adjudications  of  courts,  which  often 
decide  diplomatic  controversies  or  contain  his- 
torical summaries  of  international  relations.  In 
the  United  States,  both  state  and  federal  courts 
make  decisions  based  on  international  law ;  but 
the  decisions  of  the  Circuit  Courts  and  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  are  most 
likely  to  deal  with  public  law;  and  they  alone 
can  finally  construe  federal  treaties  or  statutes 
if  their  validity  is  contested.  Cases  may  be  traced 
through  the  ordinary  digests,  and  also  through 
footnotes  to  treatises  on  international  law.  Lists 
of  cases,  English  and  American,  may  be  found 
in  T.  A.  Walker,  Science  of  International  Law, 
pp.  xiii-xv ;  J.  B.  Moore,  History  and  Digest 
of  International  Arbitrations,  I,  Ixiii-lxxii. 


Interaational 
Law. 


276  Bibliography 

The  texts  of  the  federal  decisions  are  to  be 
found  in  three  series  of  collected  cases : 

(i)  Early  Cases  in  Inferior  Courts 

[1789- 1 880],  Federal  Cases ,  comprising  Cases 
argued  and  determined  in  the  Circuit  and 
District  Courts  of  the  United  States  from  the 
Colonial  Times  to  the  Beginning  of  the  Federal 
Reporter  {yn  vols.,  with  table  of  cases  and  Digest^ 
St.  Paul,  1 894-1 898).  —  Over  18,000  cases, 
arranged  alphabetically  by  cases.  Valuable 
appendix  to  Vol.  XXX,  on  Federal  Judges. 

[1863-cont.],  Cases  decided  in  the  Court  of 
Claims  of  the  United  States,  with  abstract  of 
Decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  Appeals  Cases 
(35  vols,  to  1900,  and  Digest  to  1875,  Washing- 
ton, 1867-cont.). 

(2)  Later  Cases  in  Inferior  Courts 

[189 1- 1 899],  United  States  Courts  of  Ap- 
peals, Reports.  Cases  adjudged  in  the  United 
States  Circuit  Courts  of  Appeals  (63  vols..  New 
York,  etc.,  1893-1898).  —  Official  edition;  paral- 
leled to  1899  and  continued  by  the  next  title. 

[1891-cont],  United  States  Circuit  Courts 
of  Appeals.  Reports  with  Annotations  (49  vols, 
to  1 90 1,  St.  Paul,  1 89 1  .^-cont.). 

The  Federal  Reporter:  Cases  argued  and  de- 
termined in  the  Circuit  Courts  of  Appeals  and 


Federal  Cases  277 

Circuit  and  District  Courts  of  the  United  States 
(108  vols,  and  three  Digests,  to  July,  1901,  St. 
Paul,  1 880-).  —  A  continuing  publication  issued 
in  fascicles  every  few  months  parallels  the  two 
previous  titles. 

(3)  Supreme  Court  Cases 

*  United  States  Reports,  Supreme  Court  (180 
vols,  to  1900).  —  Till  1882  published  under  the 
names  of  the  official  collectors  or  reporters. 

[  1 781-1800],  Dallas  (4  vols.,  Philadelphia, 
1 790- 1 808). 

[ 1 801-18 1 5],  Cranch  (9  vols.,  Washington, 
1804-18 1 7). 

[1816-1827],  Wheaton  (12  vols.,  New  York, 
1816-1827). 

[  1 828-1 842],  Peters  (16  vols.,  Philadelphia, 
1 828- 1 843). 

[1843-1860],  Howard (24  vols.,  Philadelphia, 
1 843- 1 860). 

[1861-1862],  Black  (2  vols.,  Washington, 
1 862- 1 863). 

[1863-1874],  Wallace  (23  vols.,  Washing- 
ton, 1 870-1 876). 

[1875-1882],  Otto  (17  vols.,  Boston,  1876- 
1883) ;  also  bears  the  title  United  States  Reports^ 
Vols,  gi-107. 

[1882-],  United  States  Reports  reported  by 
J.  C.  Bancroft  Davis  (New  York,  etc., 
1 884-). 


278  Bibliography 

A  parallel  edition  is  published  in  an  annual 
volume  (at  first  two  volumes  a  year)  under  the 
title: 

[1882 -J,  Supreme  Court  Reporter,  Cases 
argued  and  determined  in  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court  {21  vols,  to  1900,  St.  Paul,  1883- 
cont.).  A  second  parallel  edition  is  now  sus- 
pended. 

Particular  questions  in  international  law,  and 
the  historical  accounts  of  episodes  included  in 
the  judges'  opinions,  may  be  found  through  the 
various  digests  of  cases,  and  especially  through 
the  following  works : 

[165 8- 1 896],  The  Century  Edition  of  the 
American  Digest.  A  complete  Digest  of  all  re- 
ported American  Cases  from,  the  earliest  Times 
to  1896  (27  vols,  to  1901,  St.  Paul,  1899-). — 
Especially  Vol.  28,  "  International  Law." 

Walter  Malins  Rose,  Notes  on  the  United 
States  Reports :  a  brief  Chronological  Digest  of 
all  Points  determined  in  the  Decisions  of  the  Su- 
preme Court,  with  Notes  showing  the  influence, 
following,  and  present  authority  of  each  case  as 
disclosed  by  the  citations  (12  vols.,  San  Fran- 
cisco, 1899-1901).  —  Sums  up  the  later  attitude 
of  the  courts  on  each  decision,  and  the  princi- 
ples involved,  down  to  1898. 

Though  without  authority  as  decisions  in  con- 
tested cases,  the  official  opinions  (beginning  in 
1 791)  drawn  up  for  the  guidance  of  the  Presi- 


Select  Cases  279 

dent  or  heads  of  departments  are  of  much  weight 
as  historical  documents  and  as  the  conclusions 
of  trained  lawyers ;  the  title  is : 

Official  Opinions  of  the  Attorneys-General  of 
the  United  States  (22  vols,  to  1900,  Washington, 
1852-cont.). 

Of  the  five  following  collections  of  select 
cases,  the  first  three  include  some  important 
cases  defining  foreign  powers.  The  last  two  are 
special,  and  are  important  aids  to  the  study  of 
American  diplomacy. 

James  Bradley  Thayer,  Cases  in  Constitu- 
tional Law,  with  notes  (2  vols.,  Cambridge, 
1 894-1 895).  —  A  most  admirable  selection,  by 
a  great  constitutional  lawyer. 

Carl  Evans  Boyd,  Cases  on  American  Con- 
stitutional Law  (Chicago,  1898).  —  Practically 
a  selection  from  Thayer's  Cases. 

Emlin  McClain,  Cases  on  Constitutional  Law 
(Boston,  1900).  An  independent  collection  of 
about  1000  pages. 

•Freeman  Snow,  Cases  and  Opinions  on  In- 
ternational Law,  with  Notes  and  a  Syllabus 
(Boston,  1893). — Notes  very  few;  syllabus  at 
pp.  xiii-xl ;  cases  convenient  and  to  the  point. 

Pitt  Cobbett,  Leading  Cases  and  Opinions 
on  International  Law  collected  and  digested  from 
English  and  Foreign  Reports  .  .  .  and  other 
Sources ;  with  Notes  and  Excursus,  containing 
the  Views  of  the  Text  Writers  on  the  Topics  re- 


28o  Bibliography 

ferred  to,  together  with  Supplementary  Cases, 
Treatises,  and  Statutes  (2d  ed.,  London,  1892). 
D.  American  The  United  States  government  has  published 
ref "ndence  ^^^^'^  different  series  of  diplomatic  correspond- 
ence. Upon  the  character  and  history  of  these 
collections  see  Justin  Winsor,  Reader's  Hand- 
book of  the  American  Revolution,  1761-1783 
(Boston,  1880),  and  Narrative  and  Critical  His- 
tory of  America,  VII,  294,  VIII,  414. 

(i)  Jared  Sparks,  editor.  The  Diplomatic 
Correspondence  of  the  American  Revolution  (12 
vols.,  Boston,  1 829-1 830). —  Includes  despatches 
to  and  from  our  foreign  representatives  from 
1776  to  1783  ;  and  also  the  correspondence  of 
the  French  ministers  with  Congress. 

(2)  Francis  Wharton,  editor,  The  Revolu- 
tionary Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the  United 
5/'«/'^j  (6  vols.,  Washington,  1889).  —  This  con- 
tains substantially  the  material  of  the  Sparks 
edition,  with  many  additions,  and  is  arranged 
chronologically. 

(3)  The  Diplomatic  Correspondeme  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  from  the  Signing  of 
the  Definitive  Treaty  of  Peace,  loth  September, 
1783,  to  the  Adoption  of  the  Constitution,  March 
4,  i78g  (7  vols.,  Washington,  1833-1834;  re- 
printed in  3  vols.,  1837).  —  This  correspondence 
is  arranged  on  about  the  plan  of  Sparks's 
Correspondence. 

(4)  Thomas  B.  Wait,  editor,  State  Papers  and 


Official  Correspondence      28 1 

Publick  Documents  of  the  United  States, .  .  .  exhib- 
iting a  Complete  View  of  our  Foreign  Relations 
(12  vols.,  Boston,  1815-1819).  —  This  series  ex- 
tends from  1 789  to  1 8 1 8,  and  is  practically  super- 
seded by  the  American  State  Papers,  Foreign. 

(5)  Walter  Lowrie  and  Matthew  St. 
Clair  Clarke,  editors,  American  State  Papers ; 
Documents,  Legislative  and  Executive,  of  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  ;  Class  I,  Foreign 
Relations  (6  vols.,  Washington,  1832-1859). — 
This  series  is  a  reprint  of  correspondence  sub- 
mitted at  various  times  to  Congress.  It  is 
extremely  well  arranged  and  indexed,  and  cov- 
ers the  period  from  1789  to  1828. 

(6)  Between  1828  and  i860  there  was  no 
systematic  collection,  and  the  very  important 
diplomatic  correspondence  is  scattered  through 
the  executive  documents.  The  president  in 
many  special  messages  refers  to  particular  cor- 
respondence, which  may  be  traced  through 
Richardson's  Messages  of  the  Presidents.  The 
main  official  collections  during  this  period  are 
the  following : 

1835 :  House  Doc,  24  Cong.,  i  sess..  Vol.  I, 
No.  2. 

1H36:  Senate  Doc,  24.  Cong.,  2  sess..  Vol.  I, 
No.  I. 

183J :  Senate  Doc,  25  Cong.,  2  sess.,  Vol.  I, 
No.  i;  House  Doc,  25  Cong.,  2  sess..  Vol.  I, 
No.  3. 


282  Bibliography 

i8j8:  Senate  Doc,  25  Cong.,  3  sess.,  Vol.  I, 
No.  2 ;  House  Doc,  25  Cong.,  3  sess..  Vol.  I, 
No.  2. 

/(?jp.-  None. 

1840 :  None. 

/(S"^/.'  Senate  Doc,  27  Cong.,  2  sess.,  Vol.  I, 
No.  I ;  House  Doc,  27  Cong.,  2  sess.,  Vol.  I, 
No.  2. 

1842 :  Senate  Doc,  27  Cong.,  3  sess.,  Vol.  I, 
No.  I ;  House  Doc,  27  Cong.,  3  sess..  Vol.  I, 
No.  2. 

184J :  Senate  Doc,  28  Cong.,  i  sess.,  Vol.  I, 
No.  I ;  House  Doc,  28  Cong.,  i  sess.,  Vol.  I, 
No.  I. 

1844:  Senate  Doc,  28  Cong.,  2  sess.,  Vol.  I, 
No.  I  ;  House  Doc,  28  Cong.,  2  sess.,  Vol.  I, 
No.  2. 

1843 :  Senate  Doc,  29  Cong.,  i  sess..  Vol.  I, 
No.  I  ;  House  Doc,  29  Cong.,  i  sess.,  Vol.  I, 
No.  2. 

1846 :  Senate  Doc,  29  Cong.,  2  sess..  Vol.  I, 
No.  I ;  House  Doc,  29  Cong.,  2  sess..  Vol.  I, 
No.  4. 

1847  •'  Senate  Doc,  30  Cong.,  i  sess.,  Vol.  I, 
No.  I. 

1848:  House  Ex.,  30  Cong.,  2  sess..  Vol.  I, 
No.  I,  pt.  I. 

1849:  House  Ex.,  31  Cong.,  i  sess..  Vol.  Ill, 
pt.  I,  No.  5,  pt.  I. 

18 JO:  None. 


Official  Correspondence       283 

1851 :  Senate  Ex.,  32  Cong.,  i  sess.,  Vol.  I, 
No.  I,  pt.  I ;  House  Ex.,  32  Cong.,  i  sess.,  Vol. 
II,  pt.  I,  No.  2,  pt.  I. 

1852:  None. 

1833:  Senate  Ex.,  33  Cong.,  i  sess..  Vol  I, 
No.  I,  pt  I ;  House  Ex.,  33  Cong.,  i  sess.,  VoL 
I,  pt.  I,  No.  I,  pt.  I. 

i8s4:  Senate  Ex.,  2  sess..  Vol.  I,  No.  i,  pt.  i ; 
House  Ex.,  33  Cong.,  2  sess.,  Vol.  i.  No.  i, 
pt.  I. 

1855:  Senate  Ex.,  34  Cong.,  i  sess..  Vol.  I, 
No.  I,  pt  I ;  House  Ex.,  34  Cong.,  i  sess..  Vol. 
I,  pt.  I,  No.  I,  pt  I. 

1856:  Senate  Ex.,  34  Cong.,  3  sess.,  Vol.  II, 
No.  5,  pt  I ;  House  Ex.,  34  Cong.,  3  sess.,  Vol. 

I,  pt  I,  No.  I,  pt  I. 

183J :  Senate  Ex.,  35  Cong.,  i  sess..  Vol.  II, 
No.  2,  pt  I ;  House  Ex.,  35  Cong.,  i  sess.,  Vol. 

II,  pt  I,  No.  2,  pt  I. 

1858 :  Senate  Ex.,  35  Cong.,  2  sess.,  Vol.  I, 
No.  I,  pt  2  ;  House  Ex.,  35  Cong.,  2  sess., 
Vol.  II,  pt.  I,  No.  2,  pt  I. 

i8s9'  Senate  Ex.,  36  Cong.,  i  sess.,  Vol.  I, 
No.  2,  pt  I. 

i860:  None. 

(7)  Papers  Relating  to  the  Foreign  Relatiotis 
of  the  United  States  (Washington,  1861-cont.). 
—  From  1 86 1  to  1868  designated  as  "  Diplomatic 
Correspondence"  ;  since  1870,  as  ^^ Foreign  Rela- 
tions."—  This  is  an  annual  volume  or  volumes 


284  Bibliography 

containing  important  extracts  from  the  diplo- 
matic correspondence  of  the  preceding  twelve 
months,  sent  to  Congress  with  the  president's 
annual  message.  The  series  is  very  far  from 
containing  all  the  correspondence  that  has  been 
sent  to  Congress  in  print :  some  of  the  most  im- 
portant communications  on  Cuba,  the  Isthmus 
Canal,  the  Hay,  the  Bulwer  treaty,  and  the 
Spanish  war,  will  be  found  in  separate  publica- 
tions. One  volume  has  appeared  in  each  year, 
except  as  follows:  1863,  two  volumes;  1864, 
four  volumes;  1865,  four  volumes;  1866,  three 
volumes ;  1 867,  two  volumes ;  1 868,  two  volumes ; 
1869,  none  published;  1872,  six  volumes;  1873, 
three  volumes;  1875,  two  volumes;  1888,  two 
volumes;  1894,  three  volumes;  1895,  two 
volumes. 

Titles  of  a  few  of  the  especially  important 
reports  and  collections  are  the  following : 

Documents  Relating  to  Interoceanic  Canals 
(Senate  Documents,  55  Cong.,  3  sess.,  No.  26, 
Washington,  1898). 

Frafico-German  War.  Correspondence  of  E.  B. 
Washburne  (Senate  Executive  Documents,  45 
Cong.,  2  ses^..  No.  24,  Washington,   1878). 

Letter  from  the  Secretary  of  State  to  Chairman 
of  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  rela- 
tive to  Extraterritorial  Rights  (Senate  Miscel- 
laneous Documents,  47  Cong.,  i  sess..  No.  89, 
Washington,  1882). 


Official  Correspondence      285 

Papers  relating  to  the  War  in  South  America 
(Senate  Executive  Documents,  47  Cong.,  i  sess., 
No.  79,  Washington,  1882). 

Report  on  Extraterritorial  Crime  and  the  Cut- 
ting Case  (Washington,  1887). 

The  New  York  Public  Library  is  now  prepar- 
ing an  index  under  the  direction  of  A.  R.  Hasse, 
to  all  the  published  diplomatic  correspondence 
from  1789  to  1901. 

The  following  series  should  also  be  mentioned : 
United  States  Consular  Reports  (Washington, 
1880-).  — Since  1880  the  State  Department  has 
published  a  series  of  reports  from  foreign  con- 
suls on  a  great  variety  of  subjects,  chiefly  com- 
mercial. They  of  course  contain  little  or  no 
material  on  diplomatic  relations.  A  list  of  these 
reports  to  1890  is  printed  in  John  G.  Ames, 
Finding  List,   ICXD. 

On  the  colonial  period  the  only  available  and  e.  Foreign 
useful  collections  are  the  following: :  Official  Cor- 

°  respondence. 

Calendar  of  State   Papers,    Colonial   Series, 

America  and  West  Indies  (8  vols,  to  1899,  Lon- 
don, i860-).  —  This  series,  still  in  progress,  now 
reaches  from  1574  to  1688.  It  states  the  sub- 
stance of  papers,  and  prints  some  extracts.  It  is 
of  the  greatest  service  in  the  study  of  diplomacy 
relating  to  the  colonies.  There  are  similar  Cal- 
endars on  Spanish  affairs  from  1455  to  1603, 
and  on  Venetian  archives. 


286  Bibliography 

Edmund  Bailey  O'Callaghan  and  Ber- 
THOLD  Fernow,  cditors,  Documents  Relative  to 
the  Colonial  History  of  the  State  of  New-York 
(15  vols.,  Albany,  1 856-1 887).  —  Contains  many 
pieces  on  the  relations  of  the  French  and  English 
colonies. 

On  the  federal  period  there  are  three  series  of 
foreign  annual  publications  of  state  papers,  in- 
tended primarily  for  the  use  of  diplomats  and 
consuls  of  the  respective  countries  : 

Archives  Diplomatiques,  Recueil  de  Diplontatie 
et  (fHistoire  (70  vols,  to  1899,  Paris,  1861-). — 
All  in  French,  or  translated  into  French ;  many 
treaties  and  other  documents  of  periods  before 
1861,  some  as  far  back  as  a.d,  1400. 

*  British  and  Foreign  State  Papers,  compiled 
by  the  Librarian  and  Keeper  of  the  Papers,  For- 
eign Office  (90  vols,  to  1900,  London,  1841-). 
—  Contains  treaties,  constitutions,  and  docu- 
ments, chiefly  in  English,  from  18 12  onward; 
includes  large  parts  of  the  official  correspond- 
ence sent  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  Congress,  and  scattered  through  the 
Congressional  documents.  A  very  useful  pub- 
lication. 

Das  Staatsarchiv :  Sammlung  der  Officiellen 
Actenstiicke  zur  Geschichte  der  Gegenwart  (43 
vols,  to  1898,  Hamburg,  1861-).  —  In  English, 
French,  or  German,  as  the  case  may  be. 

The   diplomatic    correspondence    of   foreign 


Foreign  Collections  287 

countries  is  usually  published  in  collections 
made  up  when  negotiations  have  been  completed. 
For  the  diplomatic  history  of  the  United  States 
by  far  the  most  important  of  such  series  is  the 
"  Blue  Books,"  issued  from  time  to  time  by  the 
English  government.  These  are  included  in 
the  annual  "  Parhamentary  Papers,"  and  par- 
ticular correspondence  is  easily  reached  through 
the  single  index  to  the  whole  series  of  papers 
issued  in  any  one  year. 

A  rich  field  for  statement  of  fact  and  for 
contemporary  opinion  in  international  questions 
is  found  in  the  debates  of  various  legislative 
assemblies.  For  the  United  States  the  four 
series:  Annals  of  Congress,  from  1789  to  1824; 
Register  of  Debates  in  Congress,  from  1824  to 
1837;  Congressional  Globe,  from  1833  to  1873; 
Congressional  Record,  from  1873  to  the  present 
time.  The  English  point  of  view  in:  Parlia- 
mentary History  of  England,  from  1066  to  1803  ; 
The  Parliamentary  Debates,  from  1803  to  date. 

The  literature  of  American  history  is  very  f.  American 
rich  in  biographies  containing  correspondence,  P"*a«e  Cor- 
and  in  the  collected  works  of  statesmen,  but  andMe- 
deficient  in  diaries  and  autobiographies  of  diplo-  moirs. 
mats.     The  first  two  of  these  categories  are  set 
forth  in  Channing  and  Hart,  Guide,  §  25  (biog- 
raphies), §  32  (works  of  American  statesmen). 
The  most  important  contributions  of  this  sort  to 
the  history  of  American  diplomacy  are  the  lives 


288  Bibliography 

and  works  of  John  Adams,  John  Quincy  Adams, 
Joel  Barlow,  James  G.  Blaine,  James  Buchanan, 
John  C.  Calhoun,  Lewis  Cass,  Henry  Clay, 
Thomas  Corwin,  Alexander  J.  Dallas,  Silas 
Deane,  Daniel  S.  Dickinson,  Edward  Everett, 
Hamilton  Fish,  John  Forsyth,  Benjamin  Frank- 
lin, Albert  Gallatin,  Elbridge  Gerry,  Alexander 
Hamilton,  Sam  Houston,  Thomas  Hutchinson, 
Ralph  Izard,  Rufus  King,  John  Jay,  Thomas 
Jefferson,  Abbott  Lawrence,  William  Lee,  Fran- 
cis Lieber,  Abraham  Lincoln,  Edward  Living- 
ston, James  Madison,  William  L.  Marcy,  George 
P.  Marsh,  John  Marshall,  James  Monroe, 
Gouverneur  Morris,  John  L.  Motley,  William 
Penn,  Timothy  Pickering,  William  Pinkney, 
Joel  R.  Poinsett,  James  K.  Polk,  Edmund  Ran- 
dolph, John  Randolph,  William  H.  Seward, 
Jared  Sparks,  Charles  Sumner,  John  Tyler, 
Martin  Van  Buren,  George  Washington,  Daniel 
Webster,  Francis  Wharton. 

There  is  a  diary  of  James  K.  Polk  still  in 
manuscript ;  but  almost  the  only  printed  diaries 
or  autobiographies  which  are  of  service  are  the 
following : 

John  Adams,  Works ^  with  a  Life  of  the 
Author  (lO  vols.,  Boston,  1856).  —  Diary  in 
Vols,  n  and  IH. 

John  Quincy  Adams,  Memoirs,  comprising 
portions  of  his  Diary  from  lyg^  to  1848  {12  vols., 
Philadelphia,  1874-1877).  —  An  invaluable  rec- 


Private  Correspondence      289 

ord  on  most  of  the  diplomatic  questions  from 
1809  to  1845. 

George  M.  Dallas,  A  Series  of  Letters  from 
London,  written  during  the  Years  18^6-1860 
(2  vols,  in  one,  Philadelphia,   1869). 

James  Monroe,  A  View  of  the  Conduct  of 
the  Executive  in  Foreign  Affairs^  JYg4-i7g6 
(Philadelphia,   1797). 

Gouverneur  Morris,  The  Diary  and  Letters 
of  Gouverneur  Morris  (2  vols..  New  York,  1888). 

John  G.  Nicolay  and  John  Hay,  Abraham 
Lincoln:  a  History  {10  vols.,  New  York,  1890). 
—  Contains  so  many  extracts  from  narratives  of 
diplomatic  events  as  to  deserve  special  mention. 

Richard  Rush,  Memoranda  of  a  Residence 
at  the  Court  of  London,  1817-1819  (Philadel- 
phia, 1833).  Second  series,  1819-1825  (Phila- 
delphia, 1845);  also  edited  by  Benjamin  Rush, 
under  the  title  The  Court  of  London,  i8ig-i82^ 
(London,  1873). — Chiefly  on  the  Monroe 
Doctrine. 

Waddy  Thompson,  Recollections  of  Mexico 
(New  York,  1846). — On  his  experiences  as 
United  States  minister. 

The  only  French  diplomats  who   published  g.  Foreign 
their  experiences   in    America,   except    in   the 
official  collections,  were :  and  Me- 

Adolphe  de  Bacourt,  Souvenirs  dun  Dip-  '°°*"' 
lomate :    Lettres  Intimes sur  V Am^rique  (Paris, 
1882). 


Private  Cor- 
respondence 


290  Bibliography 

Hyde  de  Neuville,  Mimoires  et  Souvenirs 
(3  vols.,  Paris,  1 888-1 892). 

The  English  memoirs  and  biographies  con- 
taining correspondence  are  very  numerous; 
some  of  them  are  mentioned  in  T.  A.  Walker, 
Science  of  International  Law,  pp.  vii-xvi.  A 
few  which  have  especial  significance  for  Ameri- 
can relations  are  the  following : 

Evelyn  Asyii^^y  ,  Life  of  Henry  John  Temple , 
Viscount  Palmerston,  1846-1865  (2d  ed.,  2  vols., 
London,  1876).  —  Continuation  of  the  preceding. 

Edward  Pelham  Brenton,  Life  and  Corre- 
spondence of  John^  Earl  of  St.  Vincent  (2  vols., 
London,  1838).  —  On  the  first  stage  of  the  Na- 
poleonic wars. 

Sir  Henry  Lytton  Bulwer  and  Evelyn 
Ashley,  Life  of  Henry  John  Temple,  Viscount 
Palmerston  {^d  ed.,  3  vols.,  London,  1871-1874). 
—  Covers  the  period  1784- 1846. 

Robert  Stewart,  Viscount  Castlereagh, 
Second  Marquess  of  Londonderry,  Memoirs 
and Correspondence{i2  vols.,  London,  1851-1853). 

W.  BODHAM  Donne,  editor,  Correspondence  of 
George  the  Third  with  Lord  North,  1768  to  1783 
(2  vols.,  London,  1867).  —  Very  important  for 
the  negotiations  of  1782. 

Lord  Edmond  Fitzmaurice,  Life  of  Shel- 
dume  {$  vols.,  London,  1875-1876). 

G.  H.  Francis,  Opinions  and  Policy  of  Lord 
Palmerston  (London,  1852). 


Foreign  Correspondence     291 

Captain  Basil  Hall,  Fragments  of  Voyages 
and  Travels,  including  Anecdotes  of  a  Naval 
Life  {2  vols.,  Philadelphia,  1831).  —  On  captures 
of  neutral  vessels. 

Lady  Jackson,  editor,  Sir  George  Jackson: 
The  Bath  Archives ;  a  Further  Selection  from 
Diafies  and  Letters  from  i8og  to  1816  (2  vols., 
London,  1873).  —  On  F.  J.  Jackson's  mission  to 
the  United  States,  in  1809. 

Andrew  Lang,  Life,  Letters  and  Diaries  of 
Sir  Stafford  Northcote  (2d  ed.,  2  vols.,  Edin- 
burgh, 1890). 

Charles  Vane,  Marquess  of  Londonderry, 
Memoirs  and  Correspondetice  of  Viscount  Castle- 
reagh.  Second  Marquess  of  Londonderry  (4  vols., 
London,  1850). 

James  Harris,  Earl  of  Malmesbury,  Dia- 
ries and  Correspondence,  containing  an  Account 
of  his  Missions  (2d  ed.,  4  vols.,  London,  1845). 

James  Howard  Harris,  Earl  of  Malmes- 
bury, Memoirs  of  an  Ex-Minis ter,  an  Auto- 
biography, i8i4~i86g  (2d  ed.,  2  vols.,  London, 
1884). 

Robert  Rouiere  Pearce,  Memoirs  and  Cor- 
respondence of  Richard,  Marquess  Welles  ley  (3 
vols.,  London,  1846). 

Sir  Thomas  Wemyss  Reid,  Life  of  the  Right 
Honorable  William  Edward  Forster  (4th  ed., 
2  vols.,  London,  1888). 

John,  Earl  Russell,  editor.  Memorials  and 


292  Bibliography 

Correspondence  of  Charles  James  Fox  (4  vols., 
London,  1853-1857). 

John,  Earl  Russell,  Recollections  and  Sug- 
gestions, 1813-1873  (London,  1875). 

RouNDELL  Palmer,  Earl  of  Selborne, 
Memorials  (2  vols.,  London  and  New  York, 
1898). 

Philip  Henry,  Earl  Stanhope,  Life  of  the 
Right  Honourable  William  Pitt{^  vols.,  London, 
1 861-1862). 

Augustus  Granville  Stapleton,  George 
Canning  and  his  Times  (London,  1859). 

Edward  J.  Stapleton,  editor.  Some  Official 
Correspondence  of  George  Canning,  18 21-18 27  (2 
vols.,  London,  1887).  —  Essential  on  the  Monroe 
doctrine. 

William  Stanhope  Taylor,  Esq.,  and  Capt. 
John  Henry  Pringle,  Correspondence  of  William 
Pitt,  Earl  of  Chatham  (4  vols.,  London,  1840). 

Percy  M.  Thornton,  Foreign  Secretaries  of 
the  Nineteenth  Century  (3  vols.,  London,  1881- 
1882). 

Spencer  Walpole,  The  Life  of  Lord  John 
Russell  (26.  ed.,  2  vols,,  London,  1889). 

Charles  Duke  Yonge,  The  Life  and  Admin- 
istration of  Robert  Banks,  Second  Earl  of  Liver- 
pool, K.  G.,  Late  First  Lord  of  the  Treasury 
(3  vols.,  London,  1868).  —  Compiled  from  official 
documents. 

The  manuscript  official  files  of  the  govern- 


Manuscripts  293 

ment,  including  instructions,  despatches  to  and  h.  Manu- 
from  ministers  and  consuls,  claims  against  chives.  ^' 
foreign  governments,  reports  on  boundaries,  rec- 
ords of  commissions,  etc.,  are  stored  in  the 
archives  of  the  State  Department  in  Washing- 
ton, where  are  also  many  of  the  public  and  pri- 
vate papers  of  Washington,  Franklin,  Jefferson, 
Madison,  Monroe,  and  some  other  American 
statesmen.  Calendars  of  several  important  col- 
lections have  now  been  printed  by  the  Depart- 
ment. The  use  of  these  archives  must  of 
course  be  very  carefully  guarded,  and  none  but 
persons  properly  accredited  are  admitted;  and 
even  from  them  materials  which  would  affect 
pending  negotiations  or  rouse  international  ill- 
feeling  are  carefully  withdrawn.  See  Eugene 
Schuyler's  American  Diplomacy,  38-40;  Jus- 
tin WiNSOR,  Narrative  and  Critical  History, 
VIII. 

Foreign  manuscript  collections  relative  to 
American  history  and  relations  are  described  at 
much  length  in  Justin  Winsor,  Narrative  a?ui 
Critical  History,  VIII,  459-468. 


INDEX 


ABDY,  J.  T..  KenTs  Ommm- 
torus,  256. 

Adams,  Henry,  History,  25a 

Adams,  John,  envoy,  18,  19,  ao; 
on  isolation,  23 ;  suspicious  of 
French.  176 ;    Works.  288. 

Adams,  J.  Q.,  on  Holy  Alliance, 
33 ;  on  Russia  in  America,  100 ; 
on  Cuba,  113,  lao;  on  annex- 
ations, 204 ;  author  of  Monroe 
doctrine,  314;  on  American 
policy,  217;  Duplicate  Letters, 
258 ;  Memoirs,  288. 

Africa,  boundary  controversies, 
92. 

Alaska,  annexed,  44,  102,  164; 
controversies  involving,  46,  81, 
102;  arbitration,  81,  102;  gov- 
ernment, 164. 

Amelia  Island,  expedition  against, 

65. 
America,  effect  of  discovery,  5; 

boundary     controversies,    92 ; 

hegemony    of   United    States, 

104 ;  political  changes,  323-225. 

—  See    also    Latin    America, 

Monroe  Doctrine,  and  nations 

by  name. 
American  Academy  of  Political 

and    Social    Science,   Foreign 

Policy,  258 :  Annals,  267. 
American    Annual     Cyclofadia, 

367,  272. 
American  Comftrenct  em  Ariitra- 

Hem,  359. 
Amtrican  Digest,  378. 
American  Historical  Review,  367. 
American  Lean  /feview,  367. 


American  Remembrancer,  259. 

American  Statistical  Association, 
Publications,  272. 

Ames,  J.  G.,  Comprehensive  In- 
dex, 273 ;  Catalogue  of  Public 
Documents,  273 ;  Finding  List, 
385. 

Annals  of  Congress,  387. 

Annexations,  desired  by  St. 
Thomas  and  San  Domingo, 
45>  103,  by  San  Salvador  and 
Yucatan,  103;  policy  of,  123; 
right  and  expediency  of,  181- 
182, 195-207 ;  no  further  Latin- 
American,  239;  no  European 
in  America,  239.  —  See  also 
Colonies,  Interventions,  Mili- 
tary Expeditions,  Territory. 

Annual  Register,  267. 

Arbitration,  Bering  Sea,  46,  81, 
102;  of  Maine  boundary,  96; 
of  Oregon  boundary  declined, 
100;  San  Juan,  loi ;  United 
States  as  arbiter,  103. 

Archives  Diplomatique s,  270, 286. 

Armed  Neutrality,  accession  to 
denied,  16,  avoided,  19. 

Army  and  Navy  Journal,  267. 

Arnold,  Benedict,  in  Canada,  55- 
56. 

Ashley,  Evelyn,  Viscount  Pal- 
mer ston,  390. 

Asia,  obstacles  to  American  trade, 
37;  growth  of  trade,  38-40; 
boundary  controversies,  92 ; 
American  interests,  228.  —  See 
also  the  tiations  and  colonies 
by  name. 


295 


296 


Index 


Association  for  Reform  of  Law 
of  Nations,  Reports,  nffj, 

AUomey-General,  Official  Opin- 
ions, 278. 

Austria  and  Mexico,  80. 

BACOURT.  ADOLPHE   DE, 
Souvenirs,  289. 
Bancroft,  George,  History,  250; 
Formation  of  the  Constitution, 

Bancroft,  H.  H.,  History,  251. 

Barbary  States,  military  expedi- 
tions against,  58-61. 

Barb^-Marbois,  Marquis  de,  Lou- 
isiana, 259. 

Beaman,  C.  C,  Jr.,  Alabama 
Claims,  259. 

Beaumarchais,  M.D.  de,  Doctrine 
de  Monroe,  259. 

Bemis,  George,  American  Neu- 
trality, 259. 

Bernard,  Mountague,  Great  Bri- 
tain and  the  Civil  War,  259. 

Berrien,  J.  M.,  on  Cuba  and 
slavery,  122. 

Bibliographical  aids,  on  diplo- 
macy, 242-247;  on  intema- 
ional  law,  254 ;  on  public  doc- 
uments, 272. 

Bicknell,  Edward,  Territorial 
Acquisitions,  259. 

Bigelow,  John,  France  and  the 
Confederate  Navy,  259. 

Bill  of  rights,  in  Northwest  Ordi- 
nance, 180, 

Biographies,  important  to  diplo- 
matic history,  287. 

Black,  J.  S.,  Supreme  Court  Re- 
ports, 277. 

Black  Warrior  affair,  126. 

Blaine,  J.  G.,  presentation  of 
Monroe  doctrine,  82,  212,  221. 

Blue  Books,  286. 

Boundaries,  in  1783,  18,  177;  ex- 
tent of  controversies,  91 ;  world 


controversies,  92 ;  colonial,  93 ; 
growth  of  United  States,  93; 
northern,  94 ;  frontier  posts,  95 ; 
Maine,  95-97 ;  commissions  on, 
95>  96>  99>  ioi>  106:  Louisiana 
purchase,  97-99;  Oregon,  99- 
102 ;  Alaska,  102-103  '>  methods 
of  settlement,  105-106 ;  contro- 
versies with  Spain,  183,  185. 
—  See  also  Territory. 

Bowker,  R.  R.,  Annual  Literary 
Index,  244. 

Bowker  and  lies.  Reader's  Guide, 

243- 

Boyd,  C.  E.,  Cases  on  Constitu- 
tional Law,  279. 

Boynton,  C.  B.,  English  and 
French  Neutrality,  260. 

Breckinridge,  John,  on  Federal- 
ist objections  to  annexations, 
199. 

Brenton,  E.  P.,  John,  Earl  of  St. 
Vincent,  290. 

British  and  Foreign  State  Papers, 
270,  286. 

Buchanan,  James,  on  executive 
power  of  intervention,  78, 

Bulletin  de  la  Sociiti  de  la  Ligis- 
lotion  Comparie,  268. 

Bulloch,  J.  D.,  Confederate  Secret 
Service,  260. 

Bulwer,  H.  L.,  Viscount  Palmer- 
ston,  290. 

Burrows,  Montagu,  British  For- 
eign Policy,  251. 

CALENDAR  OF  STATE 
PAPERS,  Colonial,  285; 
Spanish,  285 ;    Venetian,  285. 

California,  military  expeditions 
to,  69-72 ;  conquest,  72. 

Callahan,  J.  M.,  Neutrality  of  the 
American  Lakes,  260;  Cuba, 
260;  America  in  the  Pacific, 
260 ;  Diplomacy  of  the  Confed- 
eracy, 260. 


Association  —  Constitution     297 


Callara,  on  Jackson  in  Florida, 
148. 

Calvo,  Q,ax\o%,Droit  International, 
244,  254 ;  CoUccum  de  los  Tra- 
tados,  270. 

Canada,  reciprocity  treaty,  41;  in- 
vasion of,  55-56, 63,  81 ;  sealers 
captured,  8i ;  federation  of,  pro- 
tested, 220 ;  conditions,  224, 237. 

Canning,  George,  proposes  joint 
protection  of  America,  34. 

Cases  in  international  law,  275- 
279. 

Castlereagh,  Robert,  Viscount, 
Memoirs,  ago,  991. 

Chalmers,  George,  ColUcHom  of 
Treaties,  269. 

Channing  and  Hart,  Guide,  343, 
372,  287. 

Chile,  intervention  threatened, 46, 
82,  104;  Itata,  82;  attack  on 
United  States  sailors,  82.  —  See 
also  Latin-America,  Monroe 
Doctrine. 

China,  treaty  ports,  39;  attitude 
toward,  48 ;  American  forces  in, 
75,  85. — See  also  Asia,  Inter- 
ventions. 

Circuit  Courts  0/ Appeals  Reports, 
276. 

Civil  War,  international  status  of 
the  Confederacy,  43;  prece- 
dents from,  44. 

Claiborne,  W.  C.  C,  on  formal 
transfer  of  Lx>uisiana,  193. 

Clark,  George  Rogers,  in  North- 
west, 56-57. 

Clarke,  M .  St  C,  American  State 
Papers,  280. 

Qay,  Henry,  on  Cuba,  X17, 119. 

Coaling  harbors,  status  as  colo- 
nies, 163. 

Cobbett,  Pitt,  Cases  and  Opinions, 
279. 

CoRgeshall,  George,  American 
Privateers,  260. 


Colombia,  naval  expedition  to,  77, 
79;  threats  on  Cuba,  119, 122. 

Colonies,  colonial  period,  9-12; 
European,  in  America  dep- 
recated, 104,  220;  revolt  of 
Spanish,  112;  essentials,  134; 
American  variety,  135-137;  fu- 
ture statehood,  138,  169,  179, 
195, 198 ;  foundations  of  Amer- 
ican system,  139,  141,  178-182; 
land  ownership  in,  140,  179; 
ordinances  of  1784  and  1787, 
14 1,  x8o ;  national  control,  142, 
158,  178;  unorganized  condi- 
tions, 142,  150;  progress  of, 
143-145,  156,  167;  government 
of  alien,  145-149,  193 ;  lessons 
of  experience,  150, 155-156, 167, 
172;  negro,  150-153;  Indian, 
153-156;  slavery  issue  in,  157- 
159;  coercion  of  Utah,  159- 
160 ;  Southern  states  as,  161 ; 
outlying,  162-167;  n*w  prob- 
lems, 168;  necessary  changes 
in  policy,  169-170;  fear  of  po- 
litical power  of  West,  175,  301 ; 
Constitution  on,  181-182;  loy- 
alty of,  182, 184;  colonial  diplo- 
macy, 242.  —  See  also  Annexa- 
tions, Territory. 

Commerce,  importance  of  United 
States,  7-8 ;  colonial  troubles, 
10;  violation  of  neutral,  26; 
Asiatic,  37-40 ;  navigation  laws 
renounced,  40;  free  trade  ten- 
dencies, 41 ;  extent  of  Ameri- 
can interests,  226 ;  unshackled 
American,  236. 

Compilation  0/ Reports  on  Foreign 
Relations,  275. 

Conant,  C.  A.,  United  States  im 
the  Orient,  260. 

Congressional  Globe,  287. 

Congressional  Record,  287. 

Constitution  and  annexations, 
181-182,  195-199,  204,  207. 


298 


Index 


Correspondence,  bibliography  of 
public  diplomatic,  279-287 ;  of 
private,  287-292. 

Court  of  Claims  Cases,  276. 

Cranch,  William,  Supreme  Court 
Reports,  ttj-j. 

Cuba,  joint  intervention  sug- 
gested, 46,  81 ;  war  of  1898, 
48 ;  American  protectorate,  48 ; 
precedents,  53 ;  military  expedi- 
tion to,  85 ;  and  slavery  policy, 
103,  122,  126,  127 ;  importance 
of,  108 ;  description,  109 ;  Span- 
ish government,  109-113,  128, 
130, 131 ;  race  and  political  ele- 
ments, no;  external  influences, 
no;  interest  of  United  States 
in,  113, 132 ;  sympathy  for,  113 ; 
desire  for,  114,  121,  123-127; 
Spanish  power  upheld,  114, 
116-117, 121;  European  annex- 
ation feared,  117-119;  Adams 
on,  120;  joint  disclaimers,  121, 
125 ;  influence  of  trade  on  pol- 
icy toward,  123,  132;  filibuster- 
ing, 124,  133;  Black  Warrior 
affair,  126;  Ostend  manifesto, 
127 ;  insurrection,  128-130 ;  Vir- 
ginius  affair,  129 ;  procrastina- 
tions, 130 ;  threatened  interven- 
tion, 130;  fallacious  reforms, 
131;     policy    reviewed,    132- 

133- 

Curtis,  W.  E:.,  United  States  and 
Foreign  Powers,  248. 

Cushing,  Caleb,  Treaty  of  Wash- 
ington, 260. 

Cussy,  Ferdinand  de,  Recueil  de 
Traites,  271. 

■pvALLAS,  A.  J.,  Supreme  Court 

^   Reports,  277. 

Dallas,  G,  M.,  Letters  from  Lon- 
don, 288. 

Darby,  W.  E.,  International  Tri- 
bunals, 261. 


Davis,  G.  B.,  iHttmational  Law, 

255. 
Davis,  J.  C.  B.,  historical  notes 

on  treaties,  246 ;  United  States 

Reports,  277. 
Dependencies.  —  See  Colonies. 
Diplomatic  Correspondence  of  the 

United  States,  280. 
Doctrine  of  Permanent  Interest, 

essence  of    Monroe  doctrine, 

35,  212,  234-235 ;  used  by  Sew- 
ard, 220;  used  by  Blaine,  221; 
status  of,  23s ;  essentials  of,  236- 
240.  —  See  also  Monroe  Doc- 
trine. 

Documents  on  Jnteroceanic  Can- 
als, 284. 
Doniol,  Henri,  Participation  de 

la  France,  261. 
Donne,  W.  B.,  Correspondence  of 

George  III,  290. 
Doran,  J.  1.,  Fishery  Rights,  olai. 
Doyle,  J.  A.,  English  in  America, 

251. 
Du  Bois,  W.  E.  B.,  Suppression 

of  the  Slave  Trade,  261. 
Dumont,  Jean,  Droit  des   Gens, 

269. 
Durand,  John,  Documents  on  the 

Revolution,  261. 

ELLI COTT,  A  N  DREW,  Jour- 
nal, 261. 

Elliot,  C.  B.,  Fishery  Question,  261. 

Elliot,  James,  favors  annexations, 
204. 

England,  recognizes  indepen- 
dence, 18;  oppresses  neutral 
trade,  26;  proposes  joint  pro- 
tection of  Latin-America,  34- 
35;    an  American  power,  35, 

36,  47,  220-222,  224-225,  232, 
236 ;  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  36 ; 
boundary  controversies,  94- 
97.  99-103 ;  joint  occupation  of 
Oregon,  100;  and  Cuba,  nS- 


Correspondence  —  Gerard    299 


121,  124,  125.  —  See  also  Can- 
ada, Colonies,  Revolution,  War 
of  1812. 

Europe,  changes  in  political  con- 
ditions, 225;  American  inter- 
ests in,  226-229,  232;  world 
powers  of,  228.  —  See  also  na- 
tions by  name. 

Everett,  Edward,  on  Cuba,  125. 

Executive,  power  of  intervention, 
78;  right  to  establish  tempo- 
rary governments,  203,  ao6. 

Elxpansion.  —  See  Annexations, 
Interventions,  Military  Elxpe- 
dilions,  Territory,  World 
Power. 

Explorations,  Lewis  and  Clark's, 
62,  208-209 ;  Pike's,  62 ;  Fre- 
mont's, 70;  Jefferson  pro- 
motes, 207. 

FEATHERSTONHAUGH.  G. 
W.,   Treaty  of  Washington, 

i84'2,  261. 
Federal  Cases,  276. 
Federal  Reporter,  276. 
Femald,  J.  C,  Imperial  Republic, 

262. 
Femow,    Berthold,    New     York 

Documents,  285. 
Fish,   Hamilton,  on  Cuba,  104, 

"7.  130- 

Fitrmaurice,  Lord  Edmond,S4*/- 
bume,  290. 

Fletcher,  W.  L,  "A.  L.  A."  In- 
dex, 244 ;  Annual  Literary 
Index,  244 ;  Poole's  Index,  246, 
Abridged  F.dition,  246. 

Florida,  military  expeditions  into, 
61,  6^-6^ ;  and  I^uisiana  pur- 
chase, 98;  annexed,  98;  ar- 
bitrary government  in,  147-150 ; 
complaints  against  Jackson  in, 
148  ;  offer  for  West,  190.  —  See 
also  Colonies,  Louisiana,Spain, 
Territory. 


Foreign  Relations  of  the  United 
States,  7&y,  not  exhaustive,  283. 

Forum,  267. 

Foster,  J.  W.,  American  Diplo- 
macy, 248. 

Foster,  W.  E.,  References  to 
Presidential    Administrations, 

243- 

France,  treaty  with,  15;  Louisi- 
ana purchase,  25, 186-192;  in- 
jures neutral  trade,  26;  troops 
in  Mexico,  80,  219 ;  and  Cuba, 
117-119,  125;  wishes  to  limit 
United  States  territory,  175-177. 
—  See  also  Louisiana,  Revolu- 
tion. 

Francis,  G.  H.,  Lord  Pcdmerston, 
290. 

Franco- German  War:  Corre- 
spondence of  Washburne,  284. 

Freedom  of  conscience,  as  colo- 
nial question,  i6o-i6i. 

Frelinghuysen,  F.  T.,  on  Liberia, 

152- 
Fr6mont,    J,    C,  in    the  West, 

70-72. 
French  and  Indian  War,  efifect, 

12. 
Frontier  posts,  controversy  over, 

95- 

GALLATIN,  ALBERT,  North- 
eastern Boundary,  262. 
Garden,  Guillaume   de,    Traitis 

de  Paix,  255. 
Gardoqui,  Don   Diego,  Spanish 

envoy.  183. 
Gebhardt,   A.   G..  Stale  Papers, 

262. 
General    Collection    of    Treatys, 

269. 
Geographical    situation    of    the 

United  States,  advantages,  6-7. 
George  III,  cited,  17,  2a 
Gerard,  J.  W.,  Peace  of  Utrecht, 

262. 


300 


Index 


Giddings,  F.  H.,  Democracy  and 
Empire,  362. 

Glasgow  merchants  on  War  of 
1813,  29. 

Glass,  Henry,  Marine  Interna- 
tional Law,  255. 

Government. — See  Colonies.Ter- 
ritory. 

Grant,  U.  S.,  on  Cuban  interven- 
tion, 130;  on  European  colo- 
nies in  America,  220. 

Greytown,  bombarded,  76. 

Griffin,  A.  P.  C,  Books  on  Colo- 
nisation, 244;  Books  on  Cuba, 
244;  Books  on  Hawaii,  245; 
Books  on  Porto  Rico,  245. 

Griffin,  Thomas,  on  annexations, 
202. 

Griffis,  W.  E.,  America  in  the 
East,  262. 

Griswold,  G.,  constitutional  ob- 
jections to  annexations,  197. 

Griswold,  R.,  on  annexations, 
198,  302. 

HALL,   BASIL,  Fragments  of 
Voyages,  290. 
Hall,  W.  E.,  International  Law, 

255- 

Halleck,  H.  W.,  International 
Law,  255. 

Hamet  Caracalli,  aids  in  attack 
on  Tripoli,  59;  lesson  of,  6i. 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  on  Missis- 
sippi question,  184. 

Hardy,  T.  D.,  Syllabus  ofFxdera, 
270. 

Harper,  R.  G.,  United  States  and 
France,  262. 

Harper's  Magazine,  267. 

Harris,  T.  Le  G.,  Trent  Affair,  262. 

Harrisse,  Henry,  Diplomatic  His- 
tory, 262. 

Hart,  A.  B.,  Handbook,  245. 

Hart  and  Channing,  American 
History  Leaflets,  272. 


Hautefcuille,  L.  B.,  Droit  Mari- 
time IntemcUional,  255;  Droit 
International  Maritime  et  la 
Guerre  d'Amerique,  262. 

Hawaii,  settled  by  Americans,  38 ; 
protectorate,  39,  83,  84;  troops 
landed  in,  83-84 ;  annexed,  167. 

Hay,  John,  Abraham  Lincoln, 
389. 

Haynes,  F.  E.,  Canadian  Reci- 
procity Treaty,  263. 

Henderson,  J.  B.,  Jr.,  Diplomatic 
Questions,  248. 

Henry,  Patrick,  on  alienating  ter» 
ritory,  181. 

Hermann,  Binger,  Louisiana  Pur- 
chase, 263. 

Hildreth,  Richard,  History,  351. 

Histories,  on  diplomacy,  248-350; 
general,  350-354. 

Holls,  F.  W.,  Hague  Conference, 
263. 

Holtzendorff,  Franz  von,  Droit 
des  Gens,  245;  Handbuch  des 
Volkerrechts,  254,  355. 

Holy  Alliance,  object  of,  33-34; 
interest  of  United  States  in,  34, 
213-214. 

Hopf,  Jules,  Nouveau  RecueU  de 
Traites,  371. 

House  of  Representatives,  E>ocu- 
ments,  281,  282;  Executive 
Documents,  282. 

Howard,  B.  C,  Supreme  Court 
Reports,  277. 

Hungary,  interest  in  revolt  of,  41. 

IMMIGRANTS,      assimilated, 

A     143-145,  167. 

Indians,  pursuit  of,  over  the  bor- 
der, 81;  status,  153;  policy 
toward,  153;  evils  of  reserva- 
tion system,  154;  lessons  from, 
155-156. 

Instructions  to  Diplomatic  Offi- 
cers, 275. 


Giddings  —  Lee 


301 


Insurgents,  aid  to  nrjilitary  ex- 
peditions, 61,  89. 

International  intercourse,  of  per- 
sons, 7-8 ;  of  ideas,  8-9. 

International  law,  obedience  to, 
essential  policy,  340. 

Interventions,  joint,  46, 81,90,130, 
131 ;  in  South  America,  46-48, 
82-83 ;  policy  of,  76-79, 81, 104 ; 
president  desires  general  right 
of,  78 ;  forborne  80,  85.  —  See 
also  Military  Expeditions,  Mon- 
roe Doctrine. 

Isham,  Charles,  Fufury  Question, 
363. 

Isolation,  tradition  of,  i;  denied, 
J-3.  9.  44.  51:  needed.  23,  50; 
impossible,  223.  227-228,  233. 
— See  also  Neutrality,  World 
Power. 

Isthmian  canal,  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty  on.  36,  235,  238;  inter- 
ventions due  to  interest  in, 
76-77 ;  neutrality  of,  221 ;  in- 
terests and  obligations  in,  237. 

TACKSON,     ANDREW,     in 

J     Florida,  64,  66-67.  148. 

Jackson,  J.  G.,  on  executive 
authority  in  colonies,  206:  on 
annexation,  306. 

Jackson,  Lady,  Sir  Georgt  Jcuk- 
son,  290. 

Japan,  treaty  with,  40,  75;  atti- 
tude toward,  48;  military  ex- 
peditions to,  75;  indemnity, 
76;  world  power,  228. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  on  Cuba,  116, 
118;  on  negrroes,  151;  drafts 
territorial  government,  179;  on 
importance  of  New  Orleans, 
188-189;  on  annexation,  307; 
promotes  explorations,  207- 
ao8. 

Jones,  Commodore,  occupies 
Monterey,  69. 


Jones,  John  Paul,  descent  on 
English  coast,  57. 

Jones,  L.  A.,  Index  to  Legal 
Periodical  Literature,  245,  266. 

Jordan,  D.  S.,  Imperial  Democ- 
racy, 263. 

KANSAS-NEBRASKA  BILL, 
checks  annexation  of  Cuba, 
126. 

Keasbey,  L.  M.,  Nicaragua 
Canal,  363. 

Kendall,  Amos,  on  Liberia,  151. 

Kent,  James,  Commentaries,  255. 

Kingsford,  William,  History  of 
Canada,  251. 

Korea,  armed  expedition  into,  85. 

Kossuth,  in  the  United  States,  41. 

Koszta,  Martin,  release  com- 
pelled, 74. 

LAND,  ownership  in  American 
territories,  140,  179. 

Lang,  Andrew,  Sir  Stafford 
Nortkcote,  291. 

Lamed,  J.  N.,  Literature  of 
American  History,  243. 

Latan*,  J.  H.,  United  States  and 
Slants  A  America,  348. 

Latin-America,  protection  of,  31, 
35.37'.  interest  in  welfare,  32; 
independence  recognized,  32; 
interventions,  46-48, 82-83 ;  re- 
volt from  Spain,  112;  revolts 
in,  213 ;  defective  governments, 
223,  230;  prejudices,  231 ;  com- 
merce with.  336;  no  further 
annexations  of,  239.  —  See  also 
Monroe  Doctrine,  S{>ain,  and 
nations  by  name. 

Lawrence,  T.  J.,  International 
Law,  256;    Essays,  264. 

Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  History  of 
England,  252. 

Lee,  Henry,  on  navigation  of 
Mississippi,  184. 


302 


Index 


Letter  on  Extraterritoriality,  284. 
Lewis  and  Clark's  explorations, 

63, 208-209. 
Liberia,    origin    and    condition, 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  on  neutrality, 
44 ;  plan  fornegro  colonies,  152. 

Lobos  Islands,  expedition  to,  au- 
thorized, 76. 

London  Courier,  cited  on  Cuba, 
119. 

London  Gazette,  on  future  great- 
ness of  America,  12. 

Londonderry,  Charles,  Marquess 
of,  Memoirs  of  Viscount  Castle- 
reagh,  291. 

Loi}ez,  filibuster  in  Cuba,  125. 

Louisiana,  effect  of  purchase,  25 ; 
boundary  controversies  over, 
6«-63,  97-99;  arbitrary  terri- 
torial government,  145;  com- 
plaints of  inhabitants,  146; 
admitted,  147 ;  ceded  to  France, 
186-187;  cession  a  menace, 
187-190 ;  purchase  of,  190-193 ; 
conditions  in  1803,  193 ;  trans- 
fer, 193 ;  arguments  on  annexa- 
tion and  statehood,  195-206; 
purchase  ratified,  207.  —  See 
also  Colonies,  Territory. 

Lowrie,  Walter,  American  State 
Papers,  280. 

Lyman,  Theodore,  United  States 
Diplomacy,  249. 

"IjcCLAIN.  EMLIN.  Cases  on 

^'■^     Constitutional  Law,  279. 

MacDonald,  William,  Select 
Charters,  272;  Select  Docu- 
ments, 272. 

McKee,  T.  H.,  Reports  of  Com- 
mittees, TTJI. 

Madison,  James,  on  England  and 
Cuba,  118. 

Mahan,  A.  T.,  Interest  of  America 
in  Sec^^  Power,  249 ;  Sea  Power, 


252;  Sea  Power  and  French 
Revolution,  252;  War  with 
Spain,  264;  Problem  of  Asia, 
264. 

Maine  boundary  controversy, 
95-97- 

Malmesbury,  First  Earl  of,  Dia^ 
rtes,  291. 

Malmesbury,  Third  Earl  of, 
Memoirs,  291. 

Manuscript  archives,  diplomatic, 
292-293 ;  calendars,  293. 

Marquardsen,  Heinrich,  Trent- 
fall,  264. 

Martens,  Charles  de,  Recueil  de 
Trait  is,  271. 

Memoirs  of  public  men,  287-292. 

Mexican  War,  71-72;  results,  73; 
unnecessary,  73 ;  peace,  74. 

Mexico,  French  invasion,  37,  80, 
219;  pursuit  of  Indians  into, 
81-82;  threat  on  Cuba,  119, 
122.  —  See  also  Latin-America, 
Monroe  Doctrine,  and  preced- 
ing title. 

Military  Expeditions,  precedents, 
53;  numerous,  54;  analysis 
of,  55 ;  in  Revolution,  55-57; 
against  Barbary  States,  58-61 ; 
to  Florida,  61,  63-67;  Lewis 
and  Clark's,  62,  208-209;  to 
Texas,  62,  69;  Pike's,  62;  in 
War  of  1812,  63 ;  to  Falkland 
Islands,  67;  against  Sumatra, 
68;  to  California,  69-72;  in 
Mexican  War,  71-73 ;  govern- 
ment of  occupied  territory,  73, 
88-89;  Koszfa  affair,  74;  to 
Asia,  75, 85 ;  to  Latin-America, 
76-78 ;  in  Civil  War,  79-80 ;  to 
Hawaii,  83-84;  to  Samoa,  84; 
occasions  for,  86-87;  forces 
employed,  87;  authority  for, 
87-i38 ;  local  aid  in,  89 ;  future, 
89-90;  success  of,  90.  —  See 
also  Interventions. 


Lewis  —  Papers 


303 


Milton,  Viscount  W.  F.,  Scm  Jucm 
Question,  364. 

Mississippi,  free  navigation  of, 
177.  i8a-i85. 

Monographs,  on  diplomatic  top- 
ics, 358-266. 

Monroe,  James,  Conduct  of  tkt 
Executive,  288. 

Monroe  Doctrine,  principle,  35 ; 
effect,  35 ;  applications,  47,  99, 
104;  a  cult,  an;  various 
forms,  313 ;  obsolete,  313,  233, 
333-333;  causes,  313-314;  au- 
thorship, 314 ;  original  applica- 
tion, 214-215 ;  a  quid  pro  quo, 
216-217,  221-223,  233;  inter- 
pretations, 217-223 ;  ignored, 
220-221 ;  inconsonant  with  [to- 
litical  conditions  of  United 
States,  233-333 ;  limitations  on 
modem  application,  224,  230, 
234 ;  advantages  of  retention  of 
term,  232;  valuable  essence, 
233.  —  See  also  Doctrine  of 
Permanent  Interest. 

Moore,  J.  B.,  American  Foreign 
Policy,  246,  249;  History  of 
Arbitrations,  246,  274,  275; 
Extradition,  264;  Wharton's 
Digest,  274. 

Morris.  Gouvemeur,  Diary  and 
Letters,  289. 

Moses,  Bernard,  Spanish  Rule  in 
America,  364. 

NAPOLEON,  persisU  in  selling 
Louisiana,  19X 

Nation,  367. 

National  Geographic  Magaaine, 
267. 

Navy,  in  Revolution,  13-14 ;  un- 
expected power  of,  38.  —  See 
also  Military  Expeditions. 

Neutrality,  strugi^le  to  preserve, 
24-27. 43 ;  in  Civil  War,  43-44 : 
of  isthmian  canal,  231,  338. — 


See     also     Isolation,    World 

Power. 
Neuville,    Hyde    de,  Memoires, 

389. 
New  Orleans,  filibuster  riot  in, 

125;  importance  of,  189.  —  See 

also  Louisiana. 
Nicaragua,  military   expeditions 

to,  76-77 ;  isthmian  treaty,  81. 
Nicholson,  J.  H.,  on  annexations, 

305. 
Nicolay,  J.  G.,  Abraham  Lincoln, 

289. 
Niles's  Weekly  Register,  367. 
North  American  Review,  268. 
Northwest,    conquest    of,   56-57, 

174;  Ordinance,  141,  180;  Vir- 
ginia claims,  174. 

O'CALLAGHAN,  E.  B.,  New 
York  Documents,  385. 

Olney.  Richard,  on  sovereignty 
in  America.  104:  presentation 
of  Monroe  doctrine,  312,  221- 
222. 

Onis,  Louis  de.  Treaty  of  rSrg, 
264. 

Oregon,  possession,  62,  208-209; 
joint  occupation,  68,  100;  in- 
definite region,  99 ;  claimants, 
99;  and  Monroe  doctrine,  99, 
314,  218;  Russia  withdraws 
from,  100;  increased  value  of, 
joo;  force  threatened,  100; 
arbitration  declined,  100 ;  com- 
promise line,  loi ;  unorganized 
condition,  15a  —  See  also  Colo- 
nies, Territory. 

Ostend  Manifesto,  127. 

Otto,  W.  T.,  Supreme  Court 
Reports,  377. 

PANAMA    CONGRESS,    and 
Monroe  doctrine,  317. 
Papers  on  South  American  War, 
284. 


304 


Index 


Paraguay,  armed  expedition 
against,  78. 

Parliamentary  Debates,  287. 

Parliamentary  History  of  Eng- 
land, 287. 

Pearce,  R.  R.,  Richard,  Marquess 
Wellesley,  291. 

Periodical  literature  on  diplo- 
macy, 266-268. 

Peters,  Richard,  Sufremt  Court 
Reports,  277. 

P6tin,  Hector,  Doctrine  de  Mon- 
roe, 265. 

Philippines,  probable  complica- 
tions, 49;  occupied,  85;  boun- 
daries, 104;  acquired,  167, 

Philiimore,  Sir  Robert,  Interna- 
tional Law,  254,  256. 

Phillips,  P.  L.,  Books  on  Cuba,  244. 

Pickering,  Timothy,  on  purchase 
and  status  of  Louisiana,  195- 
196. 

Pirates,  10. 

Political  Science  Quarterly,  268. 

Polk,  J.  K.,  on  arbitration,  loi ; 
presentation  of  Monroe  doc- 
trine, 212,  218-219;  inconsis- 
tent, 218;  manuscript  diary, 
288. 

Pomeroy,  J.  N.,  International 
Law,  256. 

Poole,  W.  F.,  Poole's  Index,  246, 
a66.  Abridged  Edition,  246. 

Poore,  B.  P.,  Descriptive  Cata- 
logue, 273. 

Porto  Rico,  military  expedition 
10,85;  revolt  in,  119;  annexed, 
167. 

Pownall,  Thomas,  on  manifest 
destiny,  108. 

Pradier-Fod6r6,  P,  L.  E.,  Droit 
International,  254,  256. 

Pringle,  J.  H.,  Correspondence  of 
Chatham,  292. 

Public  ^th,  essential  doctrine, 
238. 


RANDOLPH,  JOHN,  on  an- 
nexations, 198,  205. 
Reddaway,  W.  F.,  Monroe  Doc- 
trine, 265. 
Register  of  Debates,  287. 
Regulations  of  Consular  Servict, 

275- 

Reid,  T.  W.,  WUliam  Edward 
Forster,  291. 

Reinsch,  P.  S.,  Colonial  Govern- 
ment, 265 ;  World  Politics,  265. 

Report  on  Extraterritorial  Crime, 
284. 

Revolution,  recognition  of  bellig- 
erency, 13;  navy  in,  13-14; 
diplomacy,  14-19, 175-178 ;  for- 
eign expeditions,  55-57,  174 ;  a 
boundary  controversy,  93. 

Revue  de  Droit  International, 
268. 

Revue  d"  Histoire  Diplomatique, 
268. 

Revue  Ginirale  de  Droit  Inter- 
national Public,  268, 

Rhodes,  J.  F.,  History,  252. 

Richardson,  J.  D.,  Messages  and 
Papers  of  the  Presidents,  274, 
281. 

Rivier,  Alphonse,  Droit  des  Gens, 

245- 
Rodrigues,  J.  C,  Panama  Canal, 

265. 
Romero,  Mattias,  Mexico  and  the 

United  States,  265. 
Roosevelt,  Theodore,  Winning  of 

the  West,  252. 
Rose,  W.  M.,  Notes  on    United 

States  Reports,  27S. 
Rush,  Richard,  Residence  at  Lon- 
don,   289;     Court  of  London, 

289. 
Russell,     John,     Earl,     Charles 

James  Fox,  291 ;  Recollections, 

291. 
Russia  in  Oregon,  99-100,  214. 
Rymer,  Thomas,  Fasdera,  27a 


Paraguay  —  Territory      305 


SAMOA,  interest  in,  48;  joint 
government  of,  84,  165;  di- 
vision, 85,  166. 

Samwer,  Charles,  Nouveau  Re- 
cueil  de  Traitis,  271. 

Sanchez,  Cuban  agent,  120. 

San  Salvador, desires  annexation, 
103. 

Santo  Domingo,  official  papers 
on,  284. 

Scharf,  J.  T.,  Confederate  Navy, 

265. 

Schouler,  James,  History,  25a. 

Schuyler,  Eugene,  American  Dt- 
flomacy,  249,  272,  293. 

Secondary  works  on  diplomacy, 
247-268. 

Seeiey,  J.  R.,  Expansion  of  Eng- 
land, 253 ;  British  Policy,  253. 

Seijas,  R.  F.,  Derecko  Intema- 
cional,  256. 

Selbome,  Earl  of.  Memorials,  291. 

Semmes,  Raphael,  Service  Afioat, 
265. 

?)tna.\R, Executive  Documents,  245, 
27s,  282,  284,  285 ;  Documents, 
281,  282,  284;  Miscellaneous 
Documents,  284;  Reports,  284. 

Seward,  W.  H.,  on  status  of 
Alaska,  164;  on  French  in 
Mexico,  219. 

Sheffield,  John,  Lord,  Commerce 
of  the  United  States,  265. 

Slavery,  and  Cuba,  36,  103,  122- 
127;  issue  in  territories,  157- 
159 ;  issue  promotes  centraliza- 
tion, 158. 

Smith,  Edward,  England  and 
America,  253. 

Smuggling,  la 

Snow,  Freeman,  Treaties  and 
Topic s.T^q;  fntemaiional  Law, 
257 ;   Cases  and  Opinions,  279. 

SoulA,  Pierre,  minister  to  Spain, 

126. 

Sound  dues,  abolished,  4a. 


Sources  of  American  diplomacy, 
abundant,  241 ;  lack  of  bibli- 
ography, 241 ;  bibliography  of, 
269-293. 

South,  as  a  colony,  161. 

Southwest,  annexation  of,  175- 
178.  — See  also  Florida,  Lxtuisi- 
ana,  Territory. 

Spain,  territorial  controversies 
with,  31,61-67,97-99,  183,  185; 
decay  of  empire,  m  ;  revolt  of 
colonies,  112;  upheld  m  Cuba, 
114,  117,  121;  consul  mobbed, 
125;  fears  American  expan- 
sion, 175,  182;  navigation  of 
the  Mississippi,  177,  182-185; 
cedes  Louisiana,  186;  protests 
sale  of  Louisiana,  195.  —  See 
also  Cuba,  Florida,  Latin- 
America. 

Sparks,  Jared,  Diplomatic  Cor- 
respondence, 280. 

Siaatsarchiv,  270,  286. 

Stanhope,  Philip  Henry,  Earl, 
William  Pttt,  292. 

Stanton,  S.  B.,  Behring  Sea  Con- 
troversy, 265. 

Stapleton,  A.  G.,  George  Canning, 
292. 

Stapleton,  E.  J.,  Correspondence 
of  Canning,  292. 

Statesman's  Year-Hook,  268. 

Stockton,  C.  H.,  Laws  of  War  at 
Sea,  257. 

Sullivan,  John,  invades  Six  Na- 
tions, 57. 

Supreme  Court  Reporter,  277. 

TAYLOR.  W.  S..  Correspond- 
ence of  Chatham,  292. 
Territory,  colonial  contests  for, 
9-12:  Louisiana  purchase,  25, 
190-193;  from  Spain,  31,  85, 
98,  167 ;  desire  for,  36,  68.  105, 
114,204,  aio;  Alaska,  45,  192; 
military  expeditions  for,  61-73, 


3o6 


Index 


86,  90;  Oregon,  62,  207-309; 
Texas,  71;  from  Mexico,  72; 
method  of  acquisition,  139;  ex- 
ecutive power  to  establish  tem- 
porary government  in,  145, 148, 
203,  206 ,  historical  parallels  on 
expansion,  172-173,  194,  210; 
colonial  and  revolutionary  ex- 
pansion, 174-177;  navigation 
of  the  Mississippi,  183-185; 
France  in  Louisiana  develops 
spirit  of  expansion,  188 ;  dis- 
cussions on  acquisition  of,  195- 
306.  —  See  also  Annexations, 
Boundaries,  Colonies. 

T«tot,  Repertoire  de  Traitis,  271. 

Texas,  armed  expeditions  to,  62, 
69;  desired,  70,  123;  annexed, 
71 ;  and  Louisiana  purchase,  98. 

Thayer,  J.  B.,  Cases  in  Constitu- 
honal  Law,  279. 

Thompson,  Waddy,  Recollections 
of  Mexico,  289. 

Thornton,  P.  M.,  Foreign  Secre- 
taries, 292. 

Times,  The,  268. 

Torres-Caicedo,  J.  M.,  Union 
LMtino-Americana,  257. 

Tracy,  Uriah,  on  alien  annex- 
ations, 201 ;  on  sectional  aug- 
mentation, 201. 

Trade.  —  See  Commerce. 

Travis,  J.  D.,  Clayton- Bulwer 
Treaty,  266. 

Treaties,  French  in  1778,  15; 
English  in  1783,  18;  Dutch  in 
1782,  19 ;  European  desire  for, 
19-20;  Spanish  in  1795, 24, 116, 
185;  Ghent,  29,  96;  Clayton- 
Bulwer,  36, 235,238;  Chinese  in 
1844,39;  Japanese  in  1854,40, 
75 ;  objections  to  Quintuple,  41 ; 
Canadian  Reciprocity,  41 ;  Ni- 
caraguan  in  1884,  81 ;  Mexican 
in  1882,  82;  on  Samoa,  84-85; 
Jay,  95;  Ashburton,  97;  Span- 


ish in  1819,98-99;  Russian  in 
1824,  100;  Oregon  boundary, 
101;  Udefonso,  186;  Louisiana 
Purchase,  193 ;  bibliography  of, 
269-271. 

Treatises  on  international  law, 
254-258. 

Trescot.  W.  H.,  Diplomacy  of  the 
Revolution,  250 ;  Diplomatic 
History,  250;  Foreign  Policy, 
266. 

Tucker,  G.  F.,  Monroe  Doctrine, 
266. 

Twiss,  Travers,  Oregon  Question, 
266. 

Tyler,  John,  on  power  of  presi- 
dent, 70. 

UNITED    STATES,    Treaties 
and   Conventions,   246,  270; 

Revised    Statutes    relating   to 

Treaties,  270. 
United  States    Consular  Reports, 

285. 
United  States  Supreme  Court  Re- 
ports, 277. 
Upton,  F,  H.,  Commerce  during 

War,  266. 
Utah,  unique  colonial  experience, 

159;  lessons  from  coercion  of. 

160. 

VAN  BUREN,  MARTIN,  on 
Cuba,  117, 121,  123. 
Venezuela,  Guiana  boundary  dis- 
pute, 47,  83,  221. 
Vergennes,  on  American  boun- 
daries, 177. 
Virginius  affair,  129. 


W 


ADE,   BEN,  on  Cuba  and 
slavery,  124. 
Wait,  T.  B.,  State  Papers,  280. 
Walker,    T.     A.,     International 

Law,  254,  257,  275,  289. 
Walker,  William,  filibuster,  77. 


Territory  —  Yucatan        307 


Wallace,  J.  W.,  Supreme  Court 
Reports,  277. 

Walpole,  Spencer,  Lord  John 
Russell,  392. 

Wars,  colonial,  ii-ia;  Revolu- 
tion, 13-19,  SS-57;  Barbary 
States,  25,  58-61.  —  See  also 
Military  Elxpeditions,  Revolu- 
tion, and  next  title. 

War  of  i8ia,  principles,  27,  63; 
effect,  28-30. 

Washington,  George,  invasion 
instructions,  56;  on  western 
secession,  182. 

Webster,  Daniel,  on  Hawaii,  83 ; 
on  Cuba  and  slavery,  133. 

Wenck,  F.  A.  W.,  Codex  Juris 
Gentium,  271. 

West.  —  See  Colonies,  Territory. 

Wharton,  Francis,  Digest,  247, 
273;  Commentaries,  257;  Rev- 
olutionary Diplomatic  Corres- 
pondence, 280. 

Wbeaton,  Henry,  International 
Law,  257;  History  of  Law  of 
Nations,  2tfi;  Right  of  Search, 
a66;   Supreme   Court  Reports, 

White,  Samuel,  on  distant  annex- 
ations, 200,  202-203. 

Winsor,  Justin,  History,  247, 253, 
279.  *93 ;  Columbus,  253 ;  Car- 
tier  to  Frontenac,  253 ;  Missis- 
sippi Basin,  254;  Westward 
Movement,  354 ;  Reader's  Hand- 
book, 279. 


Winterbotham,  William,  predic- 
tion on  America,  185. 

Woolsey,  T.  D,,  International 
Law,  254,  258,  269;  Foreign 
Policy,  3(16. 

World  Power  of  United  States, 
early  influence,  3,  18-21,  25, 
28;  policy,  3-5,  24,  31,  35-37, 
40,  45 ;  decline  of  prestige,  22, 
26;  nature  of  early  influence, 
23;  effect  of  War  of  1812,  28- 
30;  influence  in  the  Pacific, 
37-40,  48-49 ;  indep>endent  ac- 
tion, 41-43,  45;  effect  of  Civil 
War,  44 ;  reality  and  review  of, 
49-51;  policy  of  intervention, 
78,  81;  as  arbiter,  103-104; 
hegemony  in  America,  104, 
221,  222;  colonial  exp>erience, 
167;  extent  of  external  inter- 
ests, 225-230;  inevitable  re- 
sponsibilities, 229,  233 ;  perma- 
nent interests,  236-240 ;  duties, 
240.  —  See  also  Doctrine  of 
Permanent  Interest,  Isolation, 
Monroe  Doctrine,  Neutrality. 

World  Powers,  mission  of  vari- 
ous, 30 ;  future,  227. 

Wu  Ting  Fang,  on  Monroe  doc- 
trine, 229. 

Y^^-^  REVIEW,  a68. 

Yonge.  C.  D.,  Robert  Banks,  Earl 

of  Liverpool,  29X 
Yucatan,  desires  annexation,  103. 


AMERICAN    HISTORY 

Told  by  Contemporaries 


ALBERT    BUSHNELL    HART 

Harvard  University 

Each  Volume  sold  separately.     Price  $2.00  each 


Vol.  I.     Era  of  Colonization,  1492- 1689 

Vol.  II.     Building  of  the  Nation.     1689-1783 
Vol.  III.     National  Expansion.     1783-1845 

Vol.  IV.    Welding  of  the  Nation.     1845-1900 


Professor  T.  H.  Wood,  of  Worcester  Academy,  Worcester,  Mass.,  says  of  Vol.  I.  : 
"The  plan  and  the  contents  are  alike  admirable.     The  set  will  be  a  neces- 
sity for  libraries  and  for  teachers  of  American  history." 

The  Nation  : 

"  We  do  not  hesitate  to  commend  this  undertaking  as  likely  to  prove  of 
indispensable  usefulness  in  the  study  of  American  history." 

rAe  Unity: 

"  No  student  of  history  can  afford  to  be  without  this  series.  ...  It  is  a 
capital  sample  of  the  sort  of  books  we  can  justly  recommend  to  families  for 
home  reading." 

Review  of  Reviews  : 

"  Professor  Hart  grants  us  access  to  many  very  rare  and  important  documents, 
from  which  all  but  a  few  scholars  have  heretofore  been  excluded.  This  ser- 
vice to  the  cause  of  historical  knowledge  can  hardly  be  overrated." 

The  Outlook  : 

"  This  series  is  indispensable  to  history  students." 

Literature  : 

"  The  arrangement  is  perfectly  lucid,  the  extracts  are  put  before  the  reader 
unencumbereil  with  the  inevitable  notes  and  explanation  of  the  German  or 
English  historian;  the  selection  shows  the  utmost  variety,  and  mirrors  not 
only  the  political  but  the  social  and  personal  life  of  each  successive  decade." 


THE   MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

66  FIFTH   AVENXJE,  NEW  YORK 


HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

FROM  THE   COMPROMISE  OF    1850 

By  JAMES  FORD  RHODES 
Four  Volumes.        Cloth.        8vo.        $10.00 


"  One  of  the  most  important  historical  efforts  of  the  present  generatior 
and  it  is  gratifying  to  know  from  a  careful  examination  that  he  is  tho» 
oughly  equipped  for  his  responsible  task,  and  is  certain  to  present  to  th 
country  and  the  world  a  standard  history  of  the  most  important  era  o; 
modern  civilization."  —  The  Times,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

"  The  first  volume  begins  with  the  passage  of  the  Compromise  Mea&. 
ures  of  1850,  and  ends  with  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  1854 
The  second  volume  deals  with  the  stirring  political  events  which  transpires 
from  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  through  all  the  Kansas  an 
Nebraska  struggles  to  the  organization  of  the  Republican  party,  and  its  fina 
national  triumph  by  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  i860." — The  Tinui 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Vol.  III.  covers  i86o-'62  ;  Vol.  IV.,  i862-'64;  and  the  author  will  com 
plete  the  work  to  March  4,  1885,  in  three  or  four  volumes  more. 

"  It  is  the  one  work  now  within  reach  of  the  young  American  studenr 
of  to-day  in  which  he  may  learn  the  connected  story  of  the  great  battle  tha 
resulted  in  the  overthrow  of  slavery  and  the  rededication  ofthe  republic  t< 
unsullied  freedom.  In  no  other  publication  are  these  facts  so  conciselj 
so  fully,  and  so  well  presented,  and  the  student  who  makes  careful  studi 
of  this  work  will  fully  understand,  not  only  the  actual  causes  which  led  t< 
the  war,  but  he  will  know  how  gradually  they  were  developed  from  year  ti 
year  under  varying  political  power,  until  the  nation  was  ripe  for  the  revoki 
tion.  .  .  .  Taking  the  work  altogether,  we  regard  it  as  the  most  valuable 
political  publication  of  the  age,  and  the  intelligent  citizen  who  does  no 
become  its  careful  student  must  do  himself  great  injustice."  —  The  Tinui 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 

"This  is  the  best  all-around  history  of  this  period  which  has  y«« 
appeared."  —  The  Public  Ledger,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

"  The  interest  of  the  reader  is  sure  to  grow  as  he  turns  the  pages,  air< 
it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  stirring  history  of  the  period  has  not  been  told  i' 
a  more  forcible  and  vivid  way."  —  The  Dial. 

"  Fair  and  careful,  it  rests  on  abundant  information  and  laborious  studi 
.  .  .  and  it  is  hardly  exposed  to  the  risk  of  supercession."  —  The  Speaker 
London. 

"  His  impartiality,  too,  is  really  judicial,  and  never  results  from  missin 
or  underrating  the  greatness  of  the  issues  wherewith  he  is  dealing."  —  7>" 
Saturday  Review,  London. 

THE    MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 


TX 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


j6e 

APR 


OVI   tS68    1^ 


r^.   l-AU  >^a;L  1  0 


50m-5,'64  (E5474b8)  9482 


r  sociTHFRN  REGONAl.  LIBBARY  FAOUTY 


A     001  070  682     8 


s 


